The Preface to Leibniz' Novissima Sinica 9780824890902

Citation preview

THE PREFACE TO LEIBNIZ'

novissima sinica

THE PREFACE T O LEIBNIZ'

novissima sinica COMMENTARY

•

TRANSLATION

•

TEXT

òonalò f. Lach UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

UNIVERSITY O F H A W A I I PRESS HONOLULU, HAWAII, 1957

COPYRIGHT 1957 UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 57-14876 Manufactured

in Honolulu, Hawaii, by

ADVERTISER P U B L I S H I N G C O M P A N Y , LIMITED

t o my wife

PReface This short book was undertaken as part of a larger project devoted to the study of Chinese influence upon the thought, institutions, arts, and crafts of Europe. Originally, I planned to publish just the translation and the Latin text with a short prefatory note. But work with the Leibniz papers in Hanover convinced me that the Preface to the Novissima Sinica required more explanation and context than could be presented in an orderly manner through appended notes. It is for this reason that I find myself in the somewhat amusing position of writing a preface to a preface. For support in the research that went into this volume I am indebted to the Fulbright board and to the Social Science Research Committee of the University of Chicago. To my assistant, Miss Zoe Swecker, I owe a thousand thanks for patient aid. In the preparation of the translation I received help from Mr. Julius Friend, and invaluable assistance from my colleague, Professor Theodore Silverstein. To Professor Charles Moore of the University of Hawaii I wish to extend sincere thanks for his interest in my work. I also wish to thank for their constructive advice and wise criticism my long-suffering colleagues, Professors Louis Gottschalk, Earl Pritchard, and Herrlee Creel. My wife must be held responsible for having spurred me on to write this little book; the inadequacies must be charged to me. Donald F. Lack Chicago November 24, 1956

vii

tABle of contents INTRODUCTION

1

COMMENTARY Chapter 1. The Question of the Land Route Chapter 2. The Jesuits and Cultural Interchange . . . Chapter 3. Protestant Missions and Brandenburg . . . Chapter 4. Reception and Influence

5 21 39 56

TRANSLATION OF THE PREFACE

68

THE T E X T OF 1699

87

INDEX

99

ix

illustRAtions 1. PORTRAIT OF THE K'ANG-HSI EMPEROR (from the Novissima Sinica)

cover

"He was something above the middle stature, more corpulent than what in Europe we reckon handsome; yet somewhat more slender than a Chinese would wish to be: full visaged, disfigured with the small pox, had a broad forehead, little eyes, and a small nose after the Chinese fashion; his mouth was well made, and the lower part of his face very agreeable. In fine, tho' he bears no great majesty in his looks yet they shew abundance of good nature, yet his ways and actions have something of the prince in them, and shew him to be such." Lewis le Comte, Memoirs and Remarks . . . Made in above TenYears Travels through the Empire of China (London, 1738), pp. 40-41. 2. PORTRAIT OF THE GREAT ELECTOR

44

3. PORTRAIT OF ANDREAS MULLER

48

THE PREFACE TO LEIBNIZ'

novissima sinica

introduction Unlike many of his contemporaries and fellow philosophers of more recent date, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) was unusually reluctant to publish his writings. Ranging over almost all fields of human endeavor, Leibniz came in touch with most of the intellectual c u r r e n t s of his time. Many of his most profound insights, however, r e mained buried in his voluminous correspondence until they were dug out and published by others. Those who have sought to picture Leibniz 1 interest in China, have usually depended upon his published and unpublished l e t t e r s for their documentation. The Novissima Sinica ("Latest News of China") is the only book he ever published on a subject which was of consuming interest to him f r o m about 1689 until his death twenty-seven y e a r s later. Only the preface to the Novissima Sinica may be attributed to Leibniz' pen. The remainder of the book is a d i v e r s e collection of m a t e r i a l s which came into his hands by various routes. The Preface, as Leibniz' only m a j o r writing on China, printed with his knowledge, may be looked upon as the most authoritative- expression of his views on the controversy over the Chinese rites, the role of Russia as intermediary between China and Europe, and the need for Protestant missions to China. The P r e f a c e also r e veals to the careful r e a d e r the wealth of his information and the depth of his knowledge with r e g a r d to China. Finally, the simple fact that Leibniz himself, reluctanf to publish as he was, felt impelled to edit, introduce, and publish this book on China indicates the degree of importance he attached to the subject. The Novissima Sinica was f i r s t published in 1697. Two

l

years later a revised version made its appearance. 1 The version of 1699 was used in the preparation of this translation, primarily because of its revisions and its clearer type. Where major differences occur between the two prefaces, they are noted in the translation and the attached footnotes. The version of 1699 was enlarged by the inclusion of Father Joachim Bouvet's Portrait historique de l'empereur de la Chine (Paris, 1697) in Latin translation.2 The second edition also reproduced as a frontispiece an engraving of the K'ang-hsi emperor in his thirty-second year—the engraving reproduced on the cover of this book. The original preface in Leibniz' hand, though parts of it are missing, is preserved in the NiedersSchische Landesbibliothek (Leibnizbriefe, 306, 21-28) at Hanover. Parts of it have previously been translated into German and French, but not into any other modern language as far as is known.3 Most subsequent commentators have relied 1. Neither edition gives the name of a publisher or the place of publication. The Catalogue of the British Museum suggests, however, that the f i r s t edition may have been published in Hanover, and the second in Leipzig. In his standard Bibliographie des oeuvres de Leibniz (Paris, 1937), E. Ravier makes no reference to publisher or place of publication of the 1699 edition, but indicates (p. 25) that the f i r s t edition was printed in Hanover by Forster. The probability is that the second edition also was published by the same house. 2. For ¿"commentary see J. J. Heeren, "Father Joachim Bouvet's Picture of Emperor K'ang-hsi," Asia Major, VII (1932), 556-572. The copy of the 1699 edition of the Novissima Sinica in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris has the following pamphlets bound with it: De successu evangelii apud Indos occidentales, in Nova-Anglia: epistole ad Cl. Virum D. Johannem Leudenum Linguae Sanctae in Ultrajectina Academia Professorem, Scripta, A Crescentio Mathero apud Bostonienses . . . (Ultrajecti, 1699); De successu evangelii apud Indes Orientales, Epistolae aliae conscriptae Turn a D. Hermanno Specht . . . Turn etiam, a D. Adriano de Mey. . . . 3. The most comprehensive translation of it appeared in Tentzels Monatliche Unterredungen for February, 1697, as a synopsis and review of the f i r s t edition. At the end of the same year an unidentified translator published a partial translation in French entitled Lettre sur les progrez de la religion à la Chine. This is an extremely rare work, but can be found in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris. Though its author is clearly a Jesuit, his name is unknown. Backer and Sommervogel in the Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jesus surmise that Father Charles L e Gobien wrote it; H. Cordier in the Bibliotheca Sinica (cols. 835-836) expresses doubts about the correctness of this view. No further light can be shed upon its authorship f r o m internal evidence. A comprehensive summary in German, but not a complete translation has been included in chap, iv of F. R. Merkel, G. W. von Leibniz und die China-Mission (Leipzig, 1920). A shorter summary, including a number of dubious interpretations, may be found in A. Reichwein, China and Europe (London, 1925), pp. 80-81. While this book was in preparation, a French translation by Paul Bornet was published in Monumenta Sérica, XV (1956), 328-343.

2

almost exclusively upon these incomplete summaries and extracts. It was not thought worth while to translate the text proper of the Novissima Sinica. Most of its sections 4 have been published elsewhere. Some of them appear in-other collections in modern vernacular versions. Father Joseph Suarez' history of the Jesuit mission in China, its trials and triumphs, has been published in Spanish and Latin.5 Leibniz 1 summary of the Jesuit experience with the Chinese calendar reform was extracted from the earlier published but exceedingly r a r e work of Father Ferdinand Verbiest compiled at Dillingen in 1687 by Father Philippe Couplet. 6 Father Philippe-Marie Grimaldi's letter to Leibniz from Goa has apparently not been published elsewhere, but it is here utilized in the commentary on the Preface. 7 Part of the letter of Father Antoine Thomas, translated by Leibniz 4. What follows is a translation of the table of contents. An index of the materials contained in this book: Those in the f i r s t section already published in the preceding year [1697], 1. On the liberty to propagate the Christian religion in China, now f i nally conceded in 1692. An account, composed by the Rev. Father Joseph Suarez, Portuguese, rector of the College of Peking. 2. An excerpt f r o m the book on astronomy of the Rev. Father Verbiest, printed in China, by the favor of the monarch now reigning. 3. A letter f r o m the Rev. Father Grimaldi to Leibniz, f r o m Goa, December 6, 1693. 4. A letter f r o m the Rev. Father Antoine Thomas of Belgium, f r o m Peking, November 12, 1695. 5. A brief description of the journey to China made by the Muscovite embassy in the years 1693, 1694, and 1695, more correctly printed. 6. An appendix of excerpts f r o m the letters of the Rev. Father G e r billon f r o m the city of Nipchou [ Nerchinsk], situated in Muscovite territory near the Chinese border, dated September 2 and 3, concerning the war and the peace finally concluded between the Chinese and the Muscovites. The second section now published f o r the f i r s t time. 7. The Portrait of the Emperor of China now reigning, as delineated by Father Joachim Bouvet, French Jesuit, translated f r o m the French. 5. The Spanish version was that of Echaburu y Alvarez), La Libertad de China . . . (Lisbon and Valencia, 1696); Tabula Chronologica Monarchiae Sinicae

D. Juan de Espinóla (pseud, of Father la Ley de Dios en el Imperio de la the Latin extract is in P. Couplet, (Vienna, 1703), pp. 202-234.

6. Astronomía Europaea sub Imperatore tartaro-sinico Cam-hy appellato, ex umbra in lucem revocata. . . . The part of this work quoted by Leibniz originally appeared in a Chinese version of 1669 entitled T'se-yen chi-lüek. 7. The original of this letter is preserved in the Nieders'áchische Landesbibliothek at Hanover ( L e i b n i z b r i e f e , 3 3 0 , 11-12). Hereafter all r e f erences to the Leibnizbriefe r e f e r to the Hanover collection. 3

into Latin, exists also in a French manuscript version. 8 Like the letter from Grimaldi, Thomas' letter is also summarized in the pages which follow. The description of the Russian embassy to China prepared by Adam Brand is but a Latin summary of his Journal which appeared in German in 1697, in English in 1698, and in French in 1699. The letters of Father Jean Francois Gerbillon on the SinoRussian treaty negotiations of 1689 have also been published in their original French and in a more complete form than Leibniz' Latin summary of their contents. 9 Since Leibniz' thought is of general interest to many philosophers and historians, it seemed worth while to prepare a complete translation of the Preface in order to make this short, significant piece more easily available to modern scholars. The numerous references, sometimes casual, to events, persons, and places not well known in the twentieth century required the use of explanatory notes. Because of political and personal complications, Leibniz, as will be revealed in the following commentary, was sometimes intentionally vague and obtuse about his plans, his relations to the Brandenburg court, and his sources of information. The Novissima Sinica must also be viewed in its relation to Leibniz1 other interests. There is implied throughout the Preface a knowledge of European and Far Eastern events and personalities which requires for modern consumption further information and more detail than Leibniz saw fit to include.

8. Royal Library of Brussels, MS 16691-16693; Van Hultem, n. 56. 9. A. B. Busching, Magazin fur die neue Historie und Geographie, XIV (1780), 387-408; XVI (1782), 538-546. BUsching received his copy of these letters from the papers of G. S. Bayer, the eminent sinologist. Bayer had evidently copied Gerbillon's letters which were entrusted to the Russians. Bayer's papers came into the hands of Professor Reimarus of Hamburg, from whom Busching obtained the Gerbillon letters. See also infra, pp. 15-16 for further details. 4

chapter 1 THE QUESTION OF THE LAND ROUTE

After the Manchu conquest of China circa 1644, hope began to rise in central Europe that the ancient land routes to Asia might once again be opened. Though esteeming unduly the strength of the Manchus in "Great Tartary" and misconstruing the degree of their influence with the nomadic tribes of the Asiatic wilds, many missionaries and t r a d e r s of Europe believed that the Manchus had reopened the gate to China. Meanwhile, they also watched with mounting interest the closing of the gap that separated Moscow from Peking. Recalling that Nestorian missions after the seventh century and Franciscan missions in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries had been spread a c r o s s the Eurasiatic continent, the Jesuits hoped that their enterp r i s e s in P e r s i a and India might likewise be linked to the mission which Matteo Ricci had set up in Peking in 1601. The recollection that merchants like the Polos had trave r s e d the vast stretches of Asia in the thirteenth century, while the Mongols maintained their uneasy empire, aroused hope in the nonmaritime nations of Europe, such as Austria, Poland, and Brandenburg, that their merchants might also profit by direct trade with the "Middle Kingdom." Hope ran particularly high when the Jesuits let it be known that the K'ang-hsi emperor (1661-1722) viewed with interest the establishment of relations via the land route with the count r i e s of western Europe. 1 Spain, Portugal, and Italy had been stimulated in the sixteenth century through their missionaries and their colonial interests to consider the F a r East carefully. It was not, however, until the seventeenth century that the 1. Fu Lo-shu. "Sino-Western Relations during the K'ang-hsi Period. 16611722" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago. 1952), pp. 236-237.

5

northern Europeans became seriously involved in eastern Asia. The creation of joint-stock companies after 1600 enabled the northern powers to take an active commercial interest in the Orient. The successes of the Jesuits in India, in Japan (for a time), and in China aroused among Catholics and Protestants alike the hope that Christianity might be extended across the vast expanse of the Eurasiatic continent. The heyday of these hopes arrived when the Turks finally retreated at the end of the seventeenth century before the onslaughts of the Austrians, Russians, and Poles, and when it was shortly learned in Europe that Russian emissaries had concluded the Treaty of Nerchinsk (1689) with the Manchu rulers of China. The way to China across the land routes of Asia appeared to be open. If these could be developed, the northern and eastern Europeans believed they possessed an excellent opportunity to break the monopoly of the maritime nations and to take the lead in what was acknowledged to be a lucrative trade and a flourishing mission. The French menace to the Germanies was also waning in the last decade of the seventeenth century. Louis XIV increasingly turned his attention away from central Europe to the looming crisis of the Spanish Succession. England and Holland were meanwhile involved deeply in America and the Indies, and were not able to stand as an effective barrier against an extension of interest to Asia on the part of the German powers. If only Russia would co-operate with the Germans and the Poles, the routes which had borne little traffic since the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453 might once again unite China and the West. Even before the establishment of the Manchu dynasty, the Jesuits had been seriously interested in opening the land route. Father Francis Xavier wrote in 1552 to Loyola that he hoped to penetrate China from its sea side and from there proceed directly by land to Jerusalem. Xavier added: "I would like to know the length of the trip and the time it takes."2 His followers of the seventeenth century were equally interested in the answers to such questions. The 2. As quoted in F. A. Plattner, Quand I'Europe cherchait I'Asie (Paris. 1954). p. 126. A second revised edition has appeared in German, the original

6

dangers in sea travel from the elements, disease, pirates, and raiders made even a lengthy and dangerous land journey appear attractive. The sea voyage around Africa to China usually took almost a year when matters went relatively well. Of the 323 ships which sailed from Lisbon to Goa between 1580 and 1640, seventy were lost. Many of the Jesuits who set out for China either died en route, or gave up the project in despair.3 The growth of Dutch strength in the Indies during the seventeenth century also increased the hazards markedly, and made correspondence between Peking, Macao, Goa, and Rome extremely uncertain and slow. The sea route to the west by way of Mexico and the Philippines was also considered too long and dangerous. In 1602, Brother Bento de Goës left Agra in India for a voyage of exploration across Chinese Turkestan and into China proper.4 On the basis of his explorations Father Ricci in Peking was able to identify China and Marco Polo's Cathay as the same country. This identification further stimulated the Jesuits' desire to open routes from Italy to Peking similar to those followed by the Venetian merchants of the thirteenth century. For example, the possibility of using the Siberian route stimulated Father Johann Adam Schall von Bell to interview the members of caravan parties whom he met at Sian in 1627-1628 regarding the routes they had traversed to China. 5 When the Dutch blockaded Goa in 1624, the Jesuits got in touch with the Emperor Ferdinand II in an effort to enlist imperial support for the opening of a land route either through southern Asia, or through Muscovy and Siberia. At the request of Ferdinand, Russia thereafter opened its routes to Persia and the Otlanguage of this work, entitled Pfeffer und Seelen. Die Entdeckung der See und Landesweges nach Asien (Zurich, 1955). 3. Philippe Couplet, the compiler of the first catalogue of Jesuit missionaries in China, estimated that by 1690 of over six hundred Jesuits dispatched to China only one hundred arrived there. See Philippe Avril, Voyages en divers états d'Europe, et d'Asie, entrepris pour découvrir un nouveau chemin à la Chine . . . (Paris, 1692), pp. 3 - 4 . Couplet himself en route to China in 1692 was killed near Goa. On Couplet see L. Pfister. Notices biographiques et bibliographiques sur les Jésuites de l'Ancienne Mission de Chine (Shanghai 1932), Vol. I. pp. 307-313. ' 4. See C. Wessels, Early Jesuit Travelers in Central Asia, 1602-1721 (The Hague, 1924), chap, i, on the journey of Brother Goes from India to China by way of Kabul, Yarkand, Turfan. and Suchau. 5. Alfons Vàth. Johann Adam Schall von Bell S. J. Missionar in China . . . 1592-1666 (Cologne. 1933), pp. 71-80.

7

toman Empire, but not its Siberian route to China.6 Thus by the middle of the seventeenth century the Jesuits sought eagerly to explore the way f r o m India overland to China, and f r o m the Levant to India by way of P e r s i a in their effort to establish s u r e r communication with their missions in the Far East. When Father Johann Grueber, an Austrian Jesuit who was ordered in 1661 to return f r o m China to Europe, found that the Dutch blocked all ports of embarkation, he traveled to Rome by way of Tartary, Barantula, India, Persia, and Messina. 7 The success of this trip, even though it required three years, convinced even the most dubious that the land route might be practical and that it might enable the Catholics destined for China to thwart the Dutch. The Emperor Leopold I, after two audiences with Grueber, decided in 1664 to place the new route under imperial protection since in the opinion of Grueber it was "better and s u r e r " than other routes to China. Leopold supported the Jesuit effort with money and urged the papacy to c a r r y forward the work of opening the land route to China. 8 Meanwhile, Portugal opposed the efforts of the Jesuits and the emperor by also appealing directly to the papacy. Nevertheless, Pope Clement X in 1673 authorized the missionaries to travel to the Indies directly by land without passing through Lisbon.9 Early in his c a r e e r Leibniz, too, urged the opening of a land route to Asia. Convinced that the European nations should cease fighting among themselves, he suggested that the princes of Europe concentrate their aggressive efforts upon the non-European world. 1 " In his "Grand Design," Leibniz sought to persuade France to exert p r e s s u r e on 6. Anton Huonder, Deutsche Jesuitenmissionare des 17.und 18.Jahrhunderts (Freiburg. 1899). pp. 41-42. On the P e r s i a n route see Plattner, op. cii., pp. 173-179. 7. The account of Johann G r u e b e r ' s travels was published under the title Viaggio del P. Giovanni Grueber, iornando par terra da China in Europa and included in Vol. II of M. ThGvenot, Relations de divers voyages curieux . . . (Paris. 1672). 8. See Plattner, op. eit., pp. 191-192. 9. Ibid., p. 195. 10. See Jean Baruzi. Leibniz et ¡'organisation religieuse de la terre (Paris. 1907), chaps, i and ii; for further correspondence consult Preussiche Akademie der Wissenschaften. eds.. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Allgemeiner Politischer und Historischer Briefivechsel, Pt.I,Vol. I,pp. 187-188 and Vol. II, pp. 167-168; Pt.IV, Vol. I,pp 251-255and Vol.Ill, p.419. For relevant correspondence with Colbert see O. Klopp, Die Werke von Leibniz . . . (Berlin. 1867-1877), Vol. Ill, pp. 211-212.

8

Egypt and Turkey, not only to bring the benefits of C h r i s tian civilization to these areas, but also to open thereby the roads f o r Europeans across southern Asia. So s e r i ously was his proposal viewed by Colbert and Louis XIV that he was o f f i c i a l l y requested to journey to P a r i s and present his plan. In his memorial to Louis XIV entitled De expeditione Aegyptiaca . . . (1672), Leibniz argued that the opening of Egypt and southern Asia would undermine the c o m m e r c i a l monopolies of the Dutch and the Portuguese by making direct trade possible between Europe, Egypt, India, and China. Leibniz also believed that by involving Louis X I V in such projects he would deflect France f r o m adventuring in the Germanies. This hope was never r e a l ized, but his plans appealed to some c o m m e r c i a l leaders in France and to the Jesuits in particular. Colbert, until his death in 1683, advocated the dispatch of missionaries to China over both the land and sea routes. 11 It was not until 1685, however, that the French dispatched a mission by sea to China. So f a r as is known, Louis XIV never succeeded in sending a mission o v e r the land routes. Ferdinand Verbiest, the eminent Jesuit Director of the Bureau of Astronomy in Peking after 1671 and leader of the China mission until his death in 1688, was also a p e r s i s t ent advocate of the land route. 12 F e a r f u l that the rising strength of the Dutch and English would break the Portuguese hold and thereby cut off completely the maritime route f r o m Lisbon to Goa to Macao, V e r b i e s t around 1675 began to work seriously f o r the development of the land route. When Nicholas Spathari, the Russian envoy to P e king in 1676, encountered language difficulties V e r b i e s t sought to make himself as useful as possible to the t s a r ' s representative, and even wrote a letter of commendation to the tsar on Spathari's behalf. 13 Verbiest 1 s f e a r s w e r e further aroused by the determination of the Dutch to c o m municate directly with the K'ang-hsi emperor. Possibly in an e f f o r t to enlist F r a n c e ' s military support, as well as her help in missions, Verbiest, working through Father de 11. See Louis L e Comte. Memoirs and Observations . . . Made in a Late Journey through the Empire of China . . . (London. 1697). pp. 2-3. 12. See especially the study by H. Bosmans, " L e problême des relations de Verbiest avec la cour de Russie." Annales de ta Société d'Emulation de Bruges, LXII (1912). 195-221. 13. Backer and Sommervogel, op. cit., Vol. VIII, cols. 919-920. 9

la Chaize, the confessor of Louis XIV, encouraged the French to participate in the Jesuit mission. Finances also entered the matter, inasmuch as Verbiest and others could readily foresee that Portuguese and Italian funds would have to be supplemented in the future by larger bequests from France and the Germanies. Writing from Peking on September 21, 1686, Verbiest in a letter to the Jesuit General Charles de Noyelles at Rome emphasized the need for quick action to save Macao and to prevent the Dutch from supplanting the Portuguese as intermediaries between China and Europe.11* Meanwhile, Verbiest wrote to a number of influential Europeans, such as King John Sobieski of Poland, seeking to enlist their aid in winning Moscow over to his ideas.is Father Charles Vota was sent to Moscow in 1684 to found a Jesuit house and presumably to establish closer relations with the Russians in the Christian crusade against the Turks. The Jesuits in Moscow were technically under the protection of the Emperor Leopold I. George David, a Czech Jesuit with Vota at the Moscow house, sought to obtain information from Spathari and others regarding maps and the feasibility of the land route.16 On May 31, 1689, David sent a tabula itineris to Rome outlining the route to China taken by Spathari.17 In the following year, Father Antoine Thomas, the Belgian Jesuit in Peking, one of whose letters (see supra, p. 3) Leibniz included in the Novissima Sinica, sent to Rome a Tabula geographica Orientis . . . in quo demonstrantur etiam Itinera in Chinam ex Moschovia, Persia, et Mogor and a Tartariae imago ^ 14. H. Josson and L. Willaert. eds.. Correspondance de Ferdinand de la Compagnie de Jesus (1623-1688) ( B r u s s e l s . 1938). pp. 528-532. 15. Ibid.,

Verbiest

pp. 551-554.

16. Ibid., p. 216; consult also the letters of Verbiest on the subject of the land route in ibid., pp. 520-522, 532-533. 546-550. 17. Spathari had prepared a map himself in 1682 (see L. S. "Sparwenfeld's Map of Siberia." Imago Mundi, IV [1947J, facing p. 69). itinerary differed slightly f r o m that indicated on Spathari's map Florovsky. " M a p of the Siberian Route of the Belgian Jesuit. A. [1690J," Imago Mundi, VII [1951], 105-106).

Bagrow. David's (see A. Thomas

18. A. Florovsky. loc. cit, concludes that Thomas, like David, " a l s o used Spathari's m a t e r i a l " (p. 106). He argues that Thomas probably received his information through Verbiest. His evidence on this last point, however, does not appear convincing. I would suggest that Thomas probably obtained his information through Fathers P e r e i r a and Gerbillon, the Jesuit interpreters, who had helped to negotiate the Sino-Russian Treaty of Nerchinsk of 1689. Such an

10

Words and plans were accompanied by attempted action as part of the Jesuit effort to establish a continental route to China. In 1685, Father Philippe Avrili 9 and his companion, Father Barnabfe, entered Russia at Astrakhan. In this connection it should be recalled that the Jesuits hoped to unite their missions in Persia with those in China, hence the choice of Astrakhan as a port of entry. After communicating with the court, Avril and BarnabS were ordered to proceed up the Volga to Moscow. The Russians evidently thought that they were official emissaries from Louis XIV. Convinced that the land route from Moscow to Peking via Siberia would be the quickest and most practical route, Avril sought vainly to enlist Russia's co-operation. Rebuffed in Moscow, Avril traveled to Warsaw where he made contact with King John Sobieski through the Jesuit circle at the Polish court. While in Warsaw, Avril continued to approach Peter through the Polish and French emissaries in Moscow. Though Avril was unsuccessful in his effort to reach Peking, investigations led him to believe that the Siberian route followed by the Russians would be preferable to the maritime route in the long run. For a number of years before Avril's attempt, Swedish and French envoys in Moscow had sought to obtain similar rights for traders. Among the Swedish diplomats was Englebert Kaempfer, later to sail for Japan and to produce one of the earliest histories of that insular state. 20 In 1686, a Russo-Polish treaty was concluded. At the suggestion of the Jesuits in Poland, it allegedly incorporated a guarantee that the land routes should be open to Polish subjects and that Roman Catholics might practice their religion freely assumption seems particularly likely since Thomas "tries to define the Asiatic borders of the Moscow State" (p. 107), the major subject discussed at the Nerchinsk meeting. Moreover. Thomas also prepared, according to Florovsky's own statement (p. 107, n. 2). a map entitled: Nipchu - locum pacts conclusis cum Moschiae. Finally, Gerbillon states (J. B. Du Halde, The Genera! History of China [London, 1741], Vol. IV, p. 187) that two maps of Siberia were communicated to us by the Russian plenipotentiaries." Possibly these two maps were also based upon Spathari's map of 1682. hence the similarity between the maps of David and Thomas. 19. For a sketch of Avril's career see Pfister, op. cit., p. 421, n. 1. The account of his activities given here is based mainly upon his own version as recounted in his Voyages (see supra, p. 7, n. 3). 20. John F. Baddeley. Russia, p. 212.

Mongolia, China. . . . (London, 1919), Vol. II, 11

in Russia. 2 ! In Paris, meanwhile, Father de la Chaize in 1688 wrote Verbiest that he was working on a plan to dispatch a Franco-Polish mission to China across Russia. 22 According to the Dutch representative in Moscow, a French legate and five Jesuits arrived at Danzig in 1688 in the hope of entering R u s s i a . 2 3 Foy de la Neuville, a Polish emissary to Moscow and agent of the French ambassador in Poland, allegedly conversed with Spathari about the land route and officially protested in 1689 that the tsar was not living up to the terms of the treaty of 1686 with Poland, which specifically provided for freedom of travel. 24 Indirect efforts having failed to produce results, Avril joined the entourage of another Polish envoy and once again appeared at Moscow in 1690 to plead his case. Avril's audacity and persistence angered the Russians, even though his proposals were formally reconsidered by the t s a r ' s council. Being once more refused f r e e passage, Avril left Russia and shortly published the account of his enterprise (see supra, p. 7 n. 3) and included therein a map of the Siberian route based on Spathari 1 s. 25 In this ill-tempered book he attacked the Dutch and Brandenburg envoys for their intrigues in Russia, 26 and even went so far as to speak slightingly of the tsar. Such an outburst served only to harden Peter's attitude toward the Jesuits, just as Avril's 21. Further details in A. Theiner. Monuments historiques relatifs aux régnés d'Alexis Michaelovitch Feodor III et Pierre le Grand . . . extraits des archives du Vatican et de Naples (Rome, 1859). p. 304. 22. Cf. Josson and Willaert eds.. op. cit., pp. 546-550. 23. For the Russian attitude towards the Jesuits and for the role of the Dutch at Moscow see Moritz Posselt, Der General und Admiral Franz Lefort. Sein Leben und seine Zeit (Frankfurt. 1866), Vol. I. pp. 440-446. 24. See MSS in Bibliothèque Nationale (n. a. i. 5114, 58-59). Though Neuville's account has been published, I have not been able to consult it. According to Baddeley (op. cit., Vol. II, p. 212), it is entitled: Relation curieuse et nouvelle de Moscovie, contenant etc. (The Hague, 1699). It has also been asserted that Neuville's real name was Baillet, that he had never visited Russia, and that his account is unreliable. On this point' see C. Daniel and Jean Gagarin, "Un document inédit sur l'expulsion des Jésuites de Moscou en 1689," Etudes de théologie, de philosophie, et d'histoire (Paris, 1857), Vol. I, p. 397, n. 1. Theiner, op. cit., pp. 348-349 reproduces a clerical letter to the Russian emissary in Poland asking that the Jesuits be permitted to return to Moscow. 25. See Gaston Cahen, Les cartes de la Sibérie au xviiie siècle (Paris, 1911), p. 81, n. 2. 26. Cf. Posselt, op. cit., p. 451; also see Leibniz to Cuneau, July 15, 1695, in Berlinische Bibliothek, I (1747), 260.

12

audacity had helped to bring about the closing of their house in Moscow in 1689.27 In Peking, meanwhile, Verbiest was stimulated to f u r ther action in 1686 by the arrival of'a Dutch mission which volunteered to carry a set of letters in Latin, Chinese, and Manchu regarding Manchurian boundary difficulties from K'ang-hsi to Peter the Great. 28 Hitherto the Chinese emperor had received no replies to his letters of protest on Russian encroachments in the Amur region. Hence he was greatly concerned to have certain and speedy delivery. Using the influence of his position at court, Verbiest convinced the emperor to entrust an identical letter to Father Philippe Grimaldi who would travel by way of Macao and Goa as China's special envoy.29 On his way to Europe Grimaldi was refused permission to proceed from the P e r sian cities to Moscow, and therefore decided to return to Europe by way of Portugal. 30 In this race the Dutch, by virtue of their better relations at Moscow, were able to make delivery first. 31 Grimaldi also had instructions to return to China via the land route. Verbiest sought to aid Grimaldi through a letter of November 24, 1686, to Nicholas Spathati. In the letter he suggested that the next Russian embassy to China 27. Upon coming to selling out the Russian hailed enthusiastically Moscow. See C. Daniel

power in 1689, Peter denounced Princess Sophie f o r Church to the Catholic West. This tactical move was by the Patriarch and by the Protestants resident in and J. Gagarin, loc. cit., Vol. I, pp. 397-403.

28. On the Dutch embassy to Peking of 1685-1687 see J. Vixseboxe, Ben Hollandsch Gezantschap naar China in de zeventiende Eeuw (Leiden, 1946). A translation of a Chinese letter to the tsar dispatched f r o m Peking to Moscow at about the same time through Russian couriers may be found in Baddeley, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 425-427. 29. Fu Lo-shu, op. cit., p. 120. 30. News of Grimaldi's failure to gain entrance to Russia f r o m P e r s i a was transmitted to Father Gerbillon in 1688 upon his return f r o m Tartary (see J. B. Du Halde, op. cit., Vol. IV, p. 323). 31. Gaston Cahen, Histoire des relations de la Russie avec la Chine sous Pierre le Grand (Paris, 1911), pp. 39-40, n. 3, reports that the Russian archives reveal that a Dutch merchant, Abraham Goutman, brought K'ang-hsi's letter f r o m Amsterdam via Archangel to Moscow, by January, 1690. The letters carried by Grimaldi on his way to Europe evidently were relayed f r o m Goa on December 31, 1688, to Jesuits at Ispahan and Astrakhan, the great commercial centers of Persia. They finally arrived in Moscow in March, 1690, through the agency of a Jesuit known as "Konratei T e r p i l o v s k i i . " Cahen, on p. 40, queries as to the identity of the "Father Charles Maurice" at Ispahan in 1689 or 1690. It might be suggested, though without positive evidence, that this was possibly Charles Maurice Vota.

13

should include a person who knew Latin, and mentioned Grimaldi's name to Spathari. 32 Verbiest's letter, however, was too late, since Golovin's embassy (see below) had already set out for China. In 1689, Leibniz met Grimaldi in Rome. Knowing that Tsar Peter was an admirer of the German philosopher, Grimaldi apparently sought to enlist Leibniz' aid in his effort to get into Russia.33 in spite of Grimaldi's endeavors and the influence of the Pope, the Holy Roman Emperor, and the Polish king, he was thwarted in 1690 when he, like Avril, endeavored to enter Russia through Poland. Armed with numerous letters for the Shah of Persia, Grimaldi was finally forced to return to China by way of the Mediterranean Sea, the Persian cities, Goa, and Macao. While Avril and Grimaldi were knocking vainly at Russia's western gate, the Russians and Chinese in August and September of 1689 were negotiating the Treaty of Nerchinsk 34 at Russia's eastern portal. The conclusion of this pact brought to an end the frontier difficulties about which K' ang-hsi had sought repeatedly to correspond with Russia. The Chinese emissaries at Nerchinsk were accompanied by a large entourage and benefited by the presence of two Jesuit interpreters, Fathers Thomas Pereira and JeanFrancois G e r b i l l o n . 3 5 The Russian delegation led by Theodore A. Golovin was smaller than the Chinese embassy and less impressive. Though the Russian envoy and Latinist, André Belobotskii, sought to win the co-operation of the Jesuits by promising them a stipend and the favor of the tsar, Gerbillon and Pereira refused to collaborate. 36 Having failed in bribery, the Russians sought to short-circuit the Jesuits by insisting upon Mongol interpreters. In Golovin's report the Jesuits were accused of being biased in favor of China and unreasonably hostile to Russia's boundary claims. The Jesuits' contributions to the negotiations,32. Josson and Willaert, op. cit., pp. 523-533. 33. See Plattner, op. cit., p. 212. 34. Oil the conclusion of this treaty see Cahen, Histoire des relations de la Russie avec la Chine, pp. 47-53. 35. For a less fulsome account of the Jesuits' role at Nerchinsk than Leibniz accepted from the Jesuit accounts see Michel N. Pavlovsky, Chinese Russian Relations (New York, 1949), pp. 123-125. 36. Cahen, Histoire des relations de la Russie avec la Chine, appendix, pp. viii-ix. 14

though often overrated by partisans, were significant. This is attested principally by the fact that the official version of the t r e a t y was w r i t t e n in Latin.37

The conclusion of such a treaty between the two greatest Asiatic states brought to an end the fluid movement of the tribal world and forced the nomadic peoples of this vast frontier region to belong, nominally at least, to one of two great spheres of influence. Moreover, since this was the first treaty ever signed by China on a basis of equality with a European people, it raised hopes in central Europe among merchants, statesmen, missionaries, and intellectuals that the gates of China would also open for them. Little did the Europeans of this period realize that to China a stable land frontier was exceedingly vital, and that to China, facing towards Asia with its back to the sea, the traders of the maritime nations were hardly more welcome than the Japanese pirates who had earlier preyed upon China's coastal towns. The Jesuits at Nerchinsk, like those in Europe, were also doomed to disappointment in their efforts to enlist the co-operation of the Russians. At the conclusion of the negotiations Gerbillon did convince the Russians, however, to carry a report and a covering letter across the land route for delivery to the French ambassador in Poland and for relay to Father de la Chaize in Paris. 3 8 This was quite clearly an effort on the part of the Jesuits to determine the amount of time required to deliver a letter from Peking to western Europe, and to ascertain the trustworthiness of the Russians. While Gerbillon 1 s report may have reached its intended destination, the Russians saw to it that it fell into other hands as well. The Russians apparently turned over a copy of the letters to a Brandenburg engineer working in Russia who then dispatched it to Berlin. Around 1695, through the offices of J. J. Cuneau,39 Gerbillon 1 s letters were sent to Leibniz. It was these r e ports of Gerbillon that Leibniz summarized in Latin and included in the Novissima Sinica. In a letter to Cuneau of 37. The best evaluation of the specific and often disputed provisions of the Treaty of Nerchinsk is Walter Fuchs, "Der Russisch-Chinesische Vertrag von Nertschinsk vom Jahre 1689. Eine textkritische Betrachtung," Monumenta Serica, IV (1939-1940), 546-593. 38. Leibnizbriefe, 306, 1-13; also in Busching as cited supra, p. 4, n. 9. 39. See infra, p. 50. 15

May 21, 1697, Leibniz remarked: "And I have even included some things from those Jesuit letters that you communicated to me without saying however that the Muscovites had intercepted them, and without including those matters the publication of which might displease the Jesuits."40 i n 1699, Gerbillon's full reports and his memoirs were brought to Europe over the sea route by Father Jean de Fontaney. Eager to improve commercial, diplomatic, and religious relations with China, Tsar Peter evidently had no intention at any time of permitting foreign merchants, envoys, and missionaries to endanger Russia's newly won monopoly. In the Russian embassy to Peking of 1693-1695 Leibniz thought he foresaw the beginning of closer relations between China and western Europe. The Russians, on the other hand, though more than half of Ambassador Ysbrandt Ide's entourage consisted of Germans, evidently became increasingly determined to keep foreigners from traversing the land route. The Jesuits in China questioned these Germans about the fate of the Jesuits who had sought to traverse the land route from Europe, but evidently received no satisfaction.^ Nevertheless, Peter continued throughout the last decade of the seventeenth century to be under pressure from western Europe to open the land route freely to all comers. On the occasion of Peter's "anonymous" toyr of western Europe in 1697 and 1698, the Jesuits and their supporters pursued him relentlessly. Leibniz, too, sought an audience with the tsar and corresponded with his adviser, Peter Lefort, the son of Franz Lefort, and with Nicholas Witsen, the tsar's host in Holland.^ The appearance of the Novissima Sinica while Peter, was in Europe was also timed as a reminder to the tsar of Leibniz' hopes. Upon his arrival in Königsberg in May, 1697, Peter began negotiating for an alliance with Brandenburg against the Swedes. On their side the Brandenburgers sought to 40. Berlinische

Bibliothek,

II (1748), 790.

41. See Adam Brand, A Journal of the Embassy from their Majesties John and Peter Alexievitz, Emperors of Muscovy, Over Land into China. . . . (London, 1698), p. 89. 42. Consult W. Guerrier, Leibniz in seiner Beziehungen zu Russland und Peter dem Grossen (St. Petersburg, 1873), especially pp. 24, 37-45; also L. Richter, Leibniz und sein Russlandbild (Berlin, 1946), pp. 31-34; and Ernst Benz, Leibniz und Peter der Grosse (Berlin, 1947), pp. 14-21.

16

establish closer commercial relations with Russia, but viewed with apprehension Peter's plan to block Sweden. In the key commercial treaties of 1689,4? previously negotiated for Brandenburg by Johann Reyher Czaplietz, Moscow had formally given the Brandenburgers the right to trade in several Russian cities. In the course of the conversations of 1697 Elector Frederick III presented seven propositions to the tsar's representatives as a basis for n e g o t i a t i o n s . 4 4 As his sixth proposal, the elector suggested the conclusion of a trade agreement providing for an exchange of Russian furs against the Prussian amber "so highly esteemed in Persia, China, and other Oriental countries." In their r e sponse of May 24, the Russians assured the elector, without making commitments on the sale of furs, that those Brandenburgers "who wish to traverse the Muscovite lands on their way to Persia or China shall, after payment of the requisite transit tax, be accorded free passage both going and returning and without suffering indignities or offense." In the written treaty of friendship, trade, and defense concluded at Königsberg on June 22, 1697 this agreement on free passage was restated in substantially the form proposed by the Muscovites as quoted above.45 Though the Poles on the basis of their treaty of 1686 asserted that they also had the right to travel freely across Russia, the Brandenburg treaty states that this right had never been accorded the subjects of any other nation. Accompanying the written agreement was an oral pact concluded personally between Peter and Frederick. It provided for mutual assistance in case of an attack by Sweden on either Brandenburg or Muscovy. Brandenburg's refusal to support Russia against King Charles XII of Sweden finally led to the abrogation of the free passage clause in 1698 after Peter's return to Russia. The major Jesuit effort to win Peter's co-operation took place during his visit to Vienna in the summer of 1698. 43. For details see K. Forstreuter, Preussen und Russland im Mittelalter-. Die Entwicklung ihrer Beziehungen vom 13. bis 17. Jahrhundert, Vol. XXV of the Osteuropäische Forschungen (Königsberg, 1938), pp. 200-202. 44. F. Martens, ed., Recueil des Traités et Conventions conclus par la Russie avec les puissances étrangères (St. Petersburg, 1880), Vol. V, p. 43. 45. Text in ibid., pp. 47-48; also in Theodor von Moerner, ed., Kurbrandenburgs Staatsverträge von 1601 bis 1700 (Berlin, 1867), p. 633, who notes that the archives possess no ratification of this treaty. 17

Father Friedrich Wolf von Lüdinghausen, a Polish Jesuit who had been appointed by the emperor to act as guide and interpreter f o r the tsar, was evidently delegated by his order to approach Peter on the question of the land route. Wolf was widely known f o r his efforts to reunite the E a s t ern and Western churches, and was thought to possess unusual influence with the Russians. 4 6 Almost a decade b e f o r e Spathari had advised the Jesuits to get the support of the E m p e r o r Leopold I, "who is very influential in the house of the Ruthenes." 4 7 Leibniz, too, sought to stimulate action in Vienna by his correspondence with Father Francis Menegatti, the e m p e r o r ' s confessor. 4 8 Politically, there was reason to believe that the tsar might be co-operative, inasmuch as he hoped to convince Leopold to remain in active alliance with him against the Turks. Peter succeeded in getting an alliance with Leopold but not on his own terms. The Jesuits meanwhile strove by all means to win the t s a r ' s co-operation. According to widely circulated stories of the day, Wolf finally managed to e x tract an oral promise f r o m the tsar that missionaries might t r a v e r s e Russia freely. While Peter visited in P o land after leaving Vienna, the Papal Nuncio Rimini c o n f e r red with him in August, 1698. Rimini also received an o r a l promise that Catholic missionaries accredited by the king of Poland might use the " s h o r t e r " route a c r o s s Russia to

46. See the letters in the appendix to the Journal du Voyage du Boyard Boris Pêtranovitch Chêrémétef à Cracovie, Venise, Rome, et Malte (16971699), V o l . IV of the Bibliothèque Russe et Polonaise ( P a r i s , 1859). While at Rome, Chêrémétef learned to know Father Ignace Dunin-Szpot, the Polish penitencier at St. Peters, who was a close student of Jesuit mission activities and the author of a five-volume unpublished work Sinarum historia (1580-1687) preserved in the Jesuit archives. It was evidently through Dunin-Szpot that the Jesuits hoped to convert Chêrémétef to Catholicism and to win his support of their land route ideas. The interest of the Polish Jesuits in the China m i s sion was continuous and influential throughout the last decades of the seventeenth century. This fact has not been sufficiently appreciated in the recent study by Bohdan Baranowski, Znajomosc Wschodu w dawnej Polsce do XVIII wieku ("Knowledge of the East in Old Poland to the 18th Century") (Lodz, 1950); nevertheless see his comment on p. 232. See also F. Dukmeyer, Korbes Diarium itineris in Moscoviam und Quellen die es ergänzen (Berlin, 1910), Vol. II, pp. 169-170; 188-189. 47. As quoted in Bosmans, loc.

cit.,

p. 220.

48. For the role of the Jesuits Menegatti and Wolf at the court of E m p e r o r Leopold see F. R. von Krones, Handbuch der Geschichte Oesterreichs, (Berlin, 1881), Vol. III, p. 635.

18

China, but French missionaries were specifically excluded even in Peter's oral promise. 49 Though both hope and skepticism were expressed concerning the tsar's sincerity, the skeptics had their doubts confirmed. Upon his return to Russia, Peter once again turned a deaf ear to requests for freedom of passage to China. When Palma de Artois, vicar apostolic to the Mongols, presented himself and his entourage at Moscow in July, 1698, he was kept waiting three weeks before being given permission even to proceed to Persia. The final blow to foreign hopes came when in his ukase of November 12, 169850 Peter spelled out the rules for the official government-controlled trade to China and one year later ordered the establishment in Peking of a Russian Orthodox mission.51 When in February, 1699,four Italian Franciscans presented letters from the emperor, the king of Poland, and the Venetian Republic, they^were not provided with transportation to China, but were finally granted permission in May to proceed to Persia. 52 Though the land route across Siberia remained closed to Europeans, as it does even at present, enterprising Germans continued to work after 1700 towards opening a southern land route to the Indies.53 Leibniz, too, as we shall see later, continued to believe that the tsar might be 49. For these efforts to win P e t e r ' s co-operation cf. Ch6r6m§tef, op. cit., pp. 199-200; the letter of Nicholas Witsen to Leibniz of April 9, 1699, in which he expresses doubt that the tsar will keep his promise (Guerrier, op. cit., p. 45); Benz, op. cit., pp. 6; 64-65; also see Joseph Fiedler, ed., Die Relationen der Botschafter Venedigs über Deutschland und Österreich im siebzehnten Jahrhundert, Vol. X X V I I of Fontes Rerum Austricarum (Vienna, 1867), Pt. II, pp. 429-431; and Theiner, op. cit., pp. 379-380 f o r Rimini's letter to Rome. 50. For the text see Cahen, Histoire Chine, appendix, p. xiv.

des relations

de la Russie

avec la

51. On this and other matters relating to the Russian Orthodox mission, see the unpublished dissertation of Albert Parry, "Russian (Greek Orthodox) Missionaries in China, 1689-1917. Their Cultural, Political, and Economic R o l e " (University of Chicago, 1938), especially pp. 13-14. 52. See the report in "Diarium itineris in Moscoviam descriptum a J. G. Korbius," as reproduced in Johann Beckmann, ed., Litteratur der älteren Reisebeschreibungen (Göttingen, 1810), Vol. II, pp. 383-384. Though Peter instructed his ministers to provide them with transportation, they w e r e promptly forgotten about and Guarient, the imperial emissary, had to take care of them. See Dukmeyer, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 198-199. 53. In this connection particular attention should be directed to the painful travels of Johann Kaspar Schillinger who went f r o m Augsburg via Innsbruck, Trieste, Venice, F e r r a r a , Bologna, Pisa, Livorno, Alexandria, Aleppo, Ispa-

19

approached successfully by the German Protestants, despite his deafness to the pleas of the Catholic orders and governments. Hope was kept alive even for the Catholics when the Jesuit Nikolai Gian-Priamo was permitted in 1722 to accompany Leon V. Izmailov, the Russian emissary to Peking, on his return to Moscow. After an audience with the tsar, Gian-Priamo was eventually permitted to proceed to Rome.54 Russian policy, however, remained unchanged, and the Europeans who continued to think of the land route were forced to concentrate their attention upon southern Asia. Such a route proved so long, difficult, and expensive, however, that the idea was gradually given up completely during the eighteenth century. Austrian and Prussian efforts of the eighteenth century to participate in the trade of eastern Asia were confined mainly to the establishment of joint-stock companies that sought to use the sea routes.

han, to Goa. The account of his peregrinations is to be found in his Ostindianische Reisebeschreibung (Nürnberg, 1707). For further details see Huonder, op. cit., p. 48, n. 1. See also Corneille Le Bruin, Voyage . . . par la Moscovie en Perse et aux Indes Orientales . . . ' On y a ajouté la route qu'a suivie M. Isbrants ambassadeur de Moscovie en traversant la Russie et la Tartarie pour se rendre à la Chine . . . 2 vols. (Amsterdam, 1718). 54. See the reference to this episode in A. Florovsky, loc. cit., pp. 107108. A radically different account is given in Cahen, Histoire des relations de la Russie avec' la Chine, pp. 176-177. In the Bibliothèque Nationale another short account of five folio pages, probably written by Gian-Priamo, may be found (n. a. f. 9347, 8-10). 20

chapter 2 THE JESUITS AND CULTURAL INTERCHANGE Early in the seventeenth century the rulers of Austria, Bavaria, and other Catholic states of Germany had begun contributing to the maintenance of Jesuit missions in Asia. In return they had received collections of oddities, books, and porcelains from the Far East. With the decline of Spanish and Portuguese fortunes after mid-century, the Emperor Leopold I assumed an increasingly important place in missionary affairs and calculations. In 1664 the emperor in a letter to the Jesuit General Paul Oliva assured the Jesuits that the annual stipend of one thousand gulden for each mission to China provided by Emperor Ferdinand III would continue to be forthcoming from Vienna.i Urging the missionaries to travel, if possible, by the land route, Leopold extended imperial protection to them and proclaimed that all German missionaries in China should consider themselves under his protection.2 Leopold's place in the plans of the Jesuits is further attested by the fact that three of their most influential writers on China (Martini, Schall, and Kircher) dedicated their works to him. 3 The Jesuits' hopes for additional support from Vienna were shattered, however, by the resurgence of Turkish power in eastern Europe and the outbreak in 1683 of a war that engaged the emperor's attention for the next seventeen years. After 1680 the Jesuits turned more frequently for aid to the French king, Louis XIV. In 1682 Father Philippe Couplet had arrived in Europe under orders from the Peking mission to recruit highly trained missionaries for China. Though Couplet traveled in England and the Netherlands,and 1. Text of this letter quoted in Huonder, op. ext., pp. 47-48. 2. Cf. ibid., p. 48. 3. Ibid., p. 49.

21

visited Berlin, it was in France that his appeal was heard most sympathetically. Having just concluded a truce with the hard-pressed Austrians, Louis XIV was prepared in 1684-1685 to consider distant enterprises. With the entrance of the French the mission became less interested than previously in interpreting the West to China. Under the influence of France the Jesuits became increasingly more concerned about interpreting China to the West. Father de la Chaize, confessor to Louis XIV, announced in a letter to the Jesuit General Charles Noyelles on December 29, 1684: As Father Couplet whom I presented to His Majesty has made him understand, we may be able to harvest great fruits in China, if we are able to dispatch there a number of men of learning and virtue; and His Majesty being in all respects devoted to the sciences and doing everything possible to acquire knowledge from foreign countries, has ordered me to choose from his subjects some good missionaries with enough knowledge of mathematics to plot a course and to make on the spot all the observations necessary to rectify maritime and geographical maps and especially to be able to learn and understand the major arts and sciences of the Chinese: to make a collection of their books to enrich our library, to prepare interpreters who are able to make translations, and thus while under the pretext of being the observers and mathematicians of the king instruct the people in the truths of our faith.4

The French Academy of Sciences in 1685 directed a long series of questions to Couplet regarding China, particulary relating to its size, products, resources, customs, and institutions.s This was but one of a series of such questions directed to the Jesuits by learned groups and individuals of the seventeenth century. As a result of Couplet's efforts five French Jesuits, Fathers Bouvet, Gerbillon, De Visdelou, De Fontaney, and Le Comte were dispatched to China via the sea route. Gerbillon and Bouvet remained in Peking, while De Visdelou and Le Comte were sent to Shansi, and De Fontaney to Shanghai.6 4. As quoted in Regis de Chantelauze, Le Pire de la Chaize. Lettres et documents inédits (Paris, 1859), pp. 53-55. 5. The list of questions has been reproduced in V. Pinot, Documents inédits relatifs a la connaissance de la Chine en France de 1685 à 1740 (Paris 1932), pp. 7-9. 6. For further details on the origins of the French mission, see A. H. Rowbotham, Missionary and Mandarin. The Jesuits at the Court of China (Berkeley, 1942), pp. 105-106; and chap, i of V. Pinot, La Chine et la formation de l'esprit philosophique en France (1640-1740) (Paris, 1932).

22

Though the French hereafter played a leading role in China missions, the Jesuits continued to seek financial and political support in Germany and Poland. Among others, the Jesuits had turned to Ferdinand II of FUrstenberg, the prince-bishop of Munster-Paderborn from 1678 to 1683. A correspondent of Verbiest and Louis Le Comte, Ferdinand had set up in his will of 1682 a foundation of over one hundred thousand thalers, the interest from which was to be used for the support of Jesuit missionary activities in Europe and Asia.7 His intentions, however, were never carried out. A decade after Ferdinand's death Father Le Comte wrote: My Lord Bishop of Miinster and Paderborn. whom the c a r e of his own D i o c e s e did not hinder f r o m extending his c a r e even a s far as the East, gave a settlement for s i x m i s s i o n a r i e s f o r e v e r to China; but dying a little while after, his last Will was never executed. 8

Evidently Furstenberg's successor, Frederick Christian of Plettenberg, nevertheless continued corresponding with the Jesuits. It was through Ernst Cochenheim, councillor to Frederick Christian, and Johannes Clerf, Jesuit confessor at Miinster, that Leibniz received the account by Father Joseph Suarez of K'ang-hsi's decision of 1692 to extend toleration to Christianity.9 Leibniz had learned to know Cochenheim in connection with his researches into the history of the House of Brunswick. Clerf had received Suarez' account through the Portuguese Jesuit, Michel do Amaral, who had presumably brought it to Europe upon his return from China in 1694. Jo Evidently, the Jesuits hoped through circulating Suarez' history of the hardships and triumphs of the China mission to help their fund-raising projects in Germany. The financial appeal to Miinster evidently had little effect. Jesuit hopes for aid were handed a further setback when the Elector of Bavaria decided in 1687 to end the financial support which his predecessors had provided since 1616.11 7. Huonder, op. cit., pp. 55-56. 8. Op. cit., p. 387. 9. Cf. Clerf's letter as quoted in F. R. Merkel, Leibniz Mission, p. 48, n. 2. 10. Pfister, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 462-463. 11. Huonder, op. cit., p. 53. 23

und die

China-

In the meantime Leibniz corresponded with Daniel Papebroch, one of the Jesuit editors of the Acta Sanctorum. In a letter of January 26, 1687,12 Papebroch informed Leibniz of Couplet's translations from the Chinese classics, 13 discussed some of the intricacies connected with the translation of Chinese terms into European languages, and relayed the information that the French missionaries had departed for the Far East. In his reply14Leibniz asked for further information on the Chinese language, and requested more specific data on silkworm production. Papebroch let Leibniz know in response to his interest in products for Europe that the field was vast and the laborers too few for the missionaries to dissipate their energies in secular vanities. 15 Though Leibniz argued that the Jesuits of an earlier day had conducted scientific investigations for the greater glory of God,16 Papebroch remained adamant (see infra, p. 58) in his view that the missionaries in China should direct their activities to religious teaching and conversion without having serious concern for the progress of secular studies in Europe. It was while Father Grimaldi was in Rome (cf. supra, p. 14) that he and Leibniz met in 1689.17 Though Leibniz had for some time been interested in China and the activities of the Jesuits there, his daily conversations with Grimaldi in the summer of 1689 had the effect of bringing him into closer touch with the practical political and religious problems faced by the mission. 18 After his six months in Rome, the volume of Leibniz1 correspondence about China and the Jesuits increased markedly. In the Eternal City the Jesuits, too, were happy to recruit a man of Leibniz' talents and reputation on their side in the controversy 12. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, eds., Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe (Berlin, 1950), 1st series, Vol. IV (1684-1687), pp. 612-613. 13. Cf. the MS (No. 3407) in the Bibliotheque de Bourgogne (Dijon) on China and Europe written by Papebroch. 14. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften, eds., op. cit., p. 622. 15. Ibid., pp. 645-646. 16. Ibid., pp. 653-656. 17. Details of his sojourn in Rome recounted in Kuno Fischer, Gottjried Wilhelm Leibniz (Heidelberg, 1889), pp. 200-201. 18. For notes on his conversations with Grimaldi see Leibnizbriefe, 33u, p. 3. This document is entitled: Ex colloquio R. P. Grimaldi S. I. ex China aduecti ad quaestiones a me facias. Leibniz, evidently unsatisfied by Grimaldi's replies, continued to ask many of the same questions in his letters to the other Jesuits (see infra, p. 26).

24

o v e r the Chinese r i t e s which was rapidly reaching an e x plosive stage in the last two decades of the seventeenth century. 1 9 Nor could the Jesuits in their eagerness to enlist support have f a i l e d to r e a l i z e that Leibniz' voice could be heard in all parts of Germany, whether Catholic or Protestant. Leibniz kept himself in the good g r a c e s of the Jesuits during these y e a r s so c r i t i c a l in the history of the China mission by his open admiration of their achievements and by his espousal of their position in the Rites Controversy. His translation of Suarez' tract brought to a numerous European audience an account of the trials, s a c r i f i c e s , and triumphs of the successors of Matteo R i c c i in their chosen task of bringing Christianity to the Chinese. The crowning g l o r y to their e f f o r t s came on March 22, 1692 when the K'ang-hsi e m p e r o r issued his edict of toleration f o r C h r i s tianity.20 At least in part, the legalizing of Christianity in China was an expression of gratitude on the part of the Chinese e m p e r o r f o r the s e r v i c e s rendered by the Jesuits at his court and particularly f o r their aid in negotiating the T r e a t y of Nerchinsk. Though the detractors of the Jesuits in Europe w e r e many, Leibniz willingly accepted the Jesuit account of a f f a i r s in the " M i d d l e Kingdom" and regularly defended them, as in the P r e f a c e to the Novissima Sinica, against their enemies. Leibniz also shared their enthusiasm o v e r the rapid p r o g r e s s made in Christianizing after the promulgation of K ' a n g - h s i ' s edict of toleration. Through his contacts with Hiob L . Ludolf, an eminent Orientalist and diplomat of Frankfurt, Leibniz r e c e i v e d Antoine Thomas' enthusiastic account of Jesuit p r o g r e s s in proselytizing at the imperial court in Peking. 21 Indeed, hope ran high that the Chinese e m p e r o r himself might accept the Christian faith. Possibly Leibniz did not take all of Thomas' claims at f a c e value, but his letter s e r v e d Leibniz w e l l as a goad to Protestants to emulate the Jesuit example. Through Ludolf and Antonio Magliabecchi, the custodian of the Biblioteca Palatina at 19. On the details of the Rites Controversy see especially chap, x of Rowbotham, op. cit. 20. For the text of this edict in English translation see ibid., p. 110. 21. See L. Dutens, ed., Gothofridi G. Leibnitii . . . Opera omnia . . . (Geneva, 1747), Vol. I, p. 129; and A. B. Michaelis, ed., Iobi Ludolfi et G. G. Leibnitii commercium epistolicum (Gottingen, 1755), pp. 124; 129-130; 132-133.

25

Florence, Leibniz continued after the publication of the Novissima Sinica in 1697 to receive news and materials on the Jesuit missions in China.22 These new items were not, however, included in the revised edition of 1699. It is quite clear that while Leibniz viewed the Jesuit progress with keen interest he feared in the last years of the seventeenth century that the Jesuit enterprise was running close to the rocks of internecine shipwreck in Europe. He feared that their phenomenal progress, as earlier in the period of their great triumphs in Japan, might afford their enemies an opportunity to move against them.23 Through his correspondence with the leading lights of the Society, Leibniz rapidly increased his own store of information, took advantage of the opportunity to observe at close range the operations and plans of the Jesuits, and placed himself in a position to influence the thinking of the missionaries in the direction of cultural interchange. After Grimaldi succeeded Verbiest as head of the China mission, Leibniz was in a position to receive information from the fountainhead. He corresponded also with strategically placed Jesuits, such as the confessors to the rulers of Poland, Austria, and France in the hope that they might use their influence to gain political and financial support for his projects as well as their own. In some regards his hopes were realized, as will be discussed later. The aid that Leibniz lent to Father Grimaldi in his efforts to enter Russia helped particularly to establish his direct channels of information about China. Even before his conversations with Grimaldi, Leibniz' correspondence reveals that he was well acquainted with the available literature on China.24 Like most creative minds, however, he was dissatisfied, as is illustrated by his correspondence with Papebroch, with the missionary and travel accounts. They failed to provide adequate data on China of practical value to European artisans, scientists, and scholars. The reports of the merchants and adventurers doing business in the Far East usually dealt with routes, ports, markets, 22. Michaelis, ed., op. cit.,

II (l2748)C/244-245 t e r

pp. 139-140; 143.

t0 ClmeaU ' F e b r U a r y 24 ' 1697' in Berlinische

Bibliothek,

™ 'm , " \ interests in China see R. F. Merkel. Leibniz und Chtrn (Berlin, 1952), pp. 8-10; and D. F. Lach, "Leibniz and China," Journalof the History of Ideas, VI (1945), 436-440. 2 4

n

Leib

iz

earlier

26

and commodities for which a demand existed in Europe. On questions of China's religion, philosophy, and statecraft the published works and the unpublished letters of the missionaries were informative and detailed, even if they were frequently overdrawn, naive, or biased. Neither group, Leibniz felt, had as its primary interest the study of Asiatic civilization with a view to the needs of Europe. The comparisons of Europe with China made by the Jesuits usually dealt with religious or philosophical problems, and in these areas they were convinced of Christian superiority. In their evaluations of government and statecraft they unhesitatingly compared the K'ang-hsi emperor to the greatest of Europe's rulers and were generally predisposed in K'ang-hsi's favor. The same might be said of their evaluations of government and social institutions. On their side, the traders had extreme difficulty in dealing with the Chinese and were usually happy to leave Canton with a rich cargo. Obviously, they had no interest in studying the details concerning the manufacture of the porcelains and silks in their holds. To European rulers interested in economic selfsufficiency the desire was widespread at the end of the seventeenth century to learn the agricultural and manufacturing secrets of the Chinese in the hope that similar commodities of European manufacture would be able to compete more effectively with the products of eastern Asia. Leibniz was well aware of this feeling and conscious of what he was doing when he urged the missionaries to provide answers to practical questions. The missionaries, however, occupied as they were with theological controversy, and jealous as they were of their newly won freedom in China,25 feared to jeopardize their position by inquiring too minutely into matters far removed from their major concern. In the thought of inquiring individuals in Europe neither the Jesuits nor the traders were seriously enough interested in transmitting particular information to the West. In their annual letters the Jesuits had sometimes written in detail about the major differences between life in Europe 25. The removal of Christianity from the list of "false sects" was learned about in Europe also from Charles Le Gobien's Histoire de l'6dit de I'empereur de la Chine, en faveur de la religion chretienne (Paris, 1698). 27

and in eastern Asia. Impressed by the wealth and learning of the "Middle Kingdom," farsighted Europeans had thus been stimulated, even though their information was scanty, to prepare systematic comparisons of the two ways of life with the object of showing, either explicitly or implicitly, that in such comparisons Europe sometimes came off second best. One of the first detailed comparisons of this type had appeared in 1655 at Frankfurt Am Main entitled Artificia hominum miranda Naturae in Sina et Europa,ubi eximia. ... In this study the unknown author proceeded in a somewhat naive fashion to collate the size and population of China with Europe. He described the cities of China and Europe, compared Peking with Rome, and not to the disadvantage of the Chinese city. Using the available books in Western languages, the author listed the flora, fauna, minerals, etc., of eastern Asia and sought to compare them with their counterparts in Europe. The arts, mythology, and history of China also engaged his attention for the purposes of comparison. Like many of his contemporaries, religious and lay, the author compared the Chinese with the Western chronological records, such as the Bible, but without drawing conclusions as to their relative validity. Comparisons were also drawn, although not so deliberately, in such widely read works as A. Kircher's China . . . illustrata (Antwerp, 1667), Gottlieb Spizel's De re literaria Sinensium commentarius . . . (s.l., 1660), Couplet's Tabula Chronologica . . .(Paris, 1686), and J. C. Wagner, Das machtige Kayser-Reich Sina und die Asiatische Tartarey vor Augen gestellet . . . (Augsburg, 1688). 2 6 Moreover, Leibniz knew these works and corresponded, with Kircher and other Jesuits even before his visit to Rome. 27 In a letter to Grimaldi written in Rome on July 19,

26. Significantly, P a r t III of this omnibus work on China and T a r t a r y is devoted to the imperial reconquest of Hungary in 1 6 8 6 - 1 6 8 7 . Clearly, the author considered the eastward conquests of the Habsburgs as being connected with the opening of the land routes a c r o s s Asia. 27. Jean Baruzi, op. cit., p. 53, s t a t e s that Leibniz knew every important Jesuit in the China mission before 1689, and c i t e s a letter of K i r c h e r of June 23, 1670; for confirmation of B a r u z i ' s statement and for further information s e e A. Maier, "Leibnizbriefe in italienischen Bibliotheken und A r c h i v e n , " Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, XXVII (1937), 274.

28

1689,28 before the Jesuit's return to China, Leibniz thanked Grimaldi for his conversations and then remarked: "So far we have had numerous relations with the Indies and of various types; not yet, however, have we had scientific relations." He then stressed the wealth of information available in China to the attentive observer and added a list of thirty questions in which he asked among other things if certain useful plants and drugs could not be introduced to Europe. These he had learned about by studying Father Michel Boym's Flora Sinensis. Leibniz also asked for more detailed information on the manufacture of metals, tea, paper, silk, "true" porcelain, dyes, Japanese sword blades (laminarum), and glass. More geographical details on the insular regions of the Far East he felt might also help in the correction of maps. He urged that closer attention be paid to Chinese agricultural, military, and naval machines with an eye to the improvement of European devices. He requested the identification of more Chinese books, particularly relating to history and natural history, that could be with value translated into Latin. Probably with reference to the studies of Mtiller and Mentzel (see infra, pp. 45-49) Leibniz inquired as to what one might expect from a key to the Chinese language. He also asked about living comforts that might advantageously be transmitted to Europe. In the reply to Leibniz' questions, which is included in the text of the Novissima Sinica ,29 Grimaldi wrote from Goa in 1693 that though Leibniz' "questions were many and weighty" he would request his colleagues, "who are scattered through all of the Chinese provinces," to employ their collective efforts in providing answers to benefit European learning. In a letter of November 12, 16 89,30 also written from Rome, Leibniz addressed the Jesuit, John Laureati, who was already en route to Goa, exhorting him to do his utmost to facilitate "teaching and reciprocal enlightenment" between the two "widely divided worlds" of Europe and China. No record of Laureati's reply exists, but since he did not 28. Leibnizbriefe, 330, 3-5; see also Leibniz' letter to Grimaldi of May, 1691 ( L e i b n i z b r i e f e , 330, 6-7) in which he once again expresses his interest in learning more about the languages of Siberia and about Chinese. 29. Edition of 1699, p. 157; original in Leibnizbriefe, 330, 11-12. 30. E. Bodemann. Der Briefuiechsel des G. W. Leibniz (Hanover, pp. 131-132. 29

1889),

a r r i v e in China until 1697 he was obviously unable to provide Leibniz, even if he desired to do so, with materials f o r the Novissima Sinica.31 Nor did Leibniz limit his contacts to the Jesuits. Shortly after his return f r o m Rome, he corresponded with Simon de la Loub&re, who had been Louis XIV 1 s envoy to Siam in 1687-1688. Unlike many of his contemporaries, La Loubere remained unconvinced about the antiquity and superiority of Chinese civilization. After receiving f r o m the author a copy of his two-volume Du royaume de Siam (Paris, 1691), Leibniz wrote prophetically on October 15, 1691: "When the Chinese will have learned our sciences through these priests [the Jesuits], Europe will no longer have an edge on them and that is where our superiority will end."32 in commenting on the Siamese calendar discussed in Volume II (pp. 142-294) of La Loubere's study, Leibniz remarked: "The astronomers at Paris, after having deciphered this almanac, have discovered that it possesses many features which are worth imitating in Europe. "33 He also expressed the hope that French researches into the languages of the Indies would reveal something of the origins of mankind. In a letter of 1692, Leibniz congratulated La Loubere on his objectivity and remarked: "Other travelers look for the extraordinary, and you diminish it, Sir, and this is sensible, because one admires what one does not understand."34 Thus, while striving to comprehend more fully the civilizations of Asia, Leibniz evidently, though not too successfully, tried to guard against unwarranted enthusiasm f o r the remote. His effort to maintain objectivity, despite the enthusiasm of the Jesuit writers, is a striking feature of the Preface here translated. Among Leibniz 1 other correspondents in Europe who shared his interest in gaining more knowledge f r o m China was Father Adam A. Kochanski, court mathematician to King John Sobieski of Poland. When Grimaldi was in Poland in 1690 seeking to gain entrance to Russia, Kochanski

31. In a postscript on his letter to Grimaldi of December 20, 1696, Leibniz inquired regarding Laureati's whereabouts (Leibnizbriefe, 300, 26 v e r s o ) . 32. Bodemann, op. cit., p. 126. 33. Leibniz to Cuneau, June 2. 1696. Berlinische Bibliothek, I (1747), 715. 34. Bodemann. op. cit., p. 127.

30

had acted as his i n t e r p r e t e r . 3 5 Moreover, the Polish court had received Fathers Avril and Charles Maurice Vota upon their return from Russia in 1690, and the king himself had been in correspondence with V e r b i e s t . 3 6 Despite the best efforts of Kochanski and his colleagues, however, the Russians, as earlier remarked, had remained adamant in their refusal to permit the Jesuits to traverse Siberia to China. Though Kochanski complained that the king failed to exert sufficient pressure upon Peter the Great,37we know that the Polish and French envoys had made representations to the tsar and that Neuville had allegedly held conversations with Spathari about the route and the possibilities of opening it to the Jesuits.38 While this enterprise failed, it inspired in Kochanski and Vota, two of Sobieski's trusted advisers, a continuing interest in Asia and in the potential benefits of intercourse with "the Middle Kingdom." Though Leibniz and Kochanski had long-time mathematical interests in common, their correspondence after 1690 related in large part to the problems of the Jesuits in Peking and to cultivating better relations with the Russians. The tone of this lengthy correspondence is set by Leibniz in words- reminiscent of one of the most frequently quoted passages of the Novissima Sinica. In a letter written at Hanover in December, 1691, Leibniz wrote: Y o u r distinguished c o l l e a g u e . G r i m a l d i , I s a w f r e q u e n t l y at R o m e , and 1 had many c o n v e r s a t i o n s with him about things C h i n e s e . . . . I b e sought G r i m a l d i not to w o r r y s o much about getting things E u r o p e a n to the Chinese, but r a t h e r about getting r e m a r k a b l e C h i n e s e inventions to us; o t h e r w i s e little p r o f i t [ f o r E u r o p e ] w i l l b e d e r i v e d f r o m the China mission.39

Leibniz repeatedly asked his Jesuit correspondents in Poland for news of Grimaldi who had sailed from Marseil35. See P f i s t e r , op. cit., V o l . I, p. 376, n. 1. Consult also Kochanski's l e t ter to Leibniz of January, 1692 as reproduced in S. Dickstein, ed., " K o r r e s p o n dencya Kochanskiego i Leibniza . . . , " Prace Matematycznofizyczne XII (1900), 245. j J 36. Cf. supra, p. 11. 37. Kochanski felt that Sobieski could not be depended upon to keep up pressure on Russia, and he complained that nobody could keep up interest in any subject in a court that was constantly on the move (Dickstein ed loc cit p. 245). 38. Cf. supra, p. 12. 39. Dickstein, ed., loc. cit.,

p. 242.

31

les in 1691 for Smyrna and the Near East, but they were unable to enlighten him about Grimaldi's progress. It was not until 1695, when Leibniz finally received Grimaldi's letter of 1693 from Goa, that the Polish Jesuits learned of the persistent Grimaldi's peregrinations. Shortly thereafter, Kochanski was able to notify Leibniz of Grimaldi's arrival in China, information which Kochanski evidently received through the Polish Jesuits in Rome. Leibniz also corresponded with Father Vota about the land route after Vota's return to Poland from Russia in 1690.40 in these letters and in his letters to Kochanski, Leibniz expressed interest in the relationships, if any, between the "Tartarian tongues" of Siberia and the Middle East, and such European languages as Hungarian and Finnish. Kochanski, in reply to Leibniz' queries regarding maps of the overland route, told Leibniz of a Nestorian chart preserved in Poland that had considerable antiquarian interest, but could be of little practical value for it lacked latitude, longitude, and geographical notes .41 If they knew about the maps prepared by David and Thomas (see supra, p. 10), Kochanski and Vota evidently did not inform Leibniz of their existence. While preparing the Novissima Sinica and corresponding with the Jesuits in Poland, Leibniz urged his other correspondents also to help unite China, Russia, and Europe into a cultural entity through the exchange of knowledge. In a letter of December 20, 1696 to Grimaldi he suggested to the Jesuits that they encourage the Chinese to organize a scientific society similar to those then being founded in Europe. Leibniz commented: "And if the monarch of the Chinese is persuaded by you, mankind will reap many important benefits; and if such an academy be ordered endless streams of knowledge will flow to his empire; if, however, these labors are left to foreign bodies it [China] will suffer." 4 2 In this letter Leibniz also explained to Grimaldi the operation of his arithmetic machine and his system of binary arithmetic. This description laid the background 40. On Vota's career see Backer and Sommervogel, op. cit., Vol. VII, cols. 919-920. On Vota's whereabouts cf. supra, p. 13, n. 31 and infra, p. 5 1 . ' 41. Dickstein. ed., loc. cit., p. 245. 42. Leibnizbriefe, 330, 28-33; also quoted in F. R. Merkel, Leibniz und China, p. 14.

32

for Bouvet1 s explanation at a later date of the I Ching' s trigrams. 43 In his correspondence with Antoine Verjus, secretary to La Chaize, Leibniz learned more of the activities of the Jesuits and the K'ang-hsi emperor. Through Verjus he e s tablished his relations with Father Bouvet, who arrived in France from China in 1697. Carrying a gift of forty-nine Chinese volumes to Louis XIV and a set of engravings, Bouvet was delegated by his order to enlist more learned Jesuits for the China mission. 4 4 In a letter of October 18, 1697, Bouvet inaugurated correspondence with Leibniz. Bouvet was inspired to write the philosopher after reading the first edition of the Novissima Sinica, a copy of which he had received through a "M. Bigues [Bignon?] of the Sorbonne." It was also on this occasion that Bouvet sent Leibniz a copy of his Portrait historique and expressed the hope that the conversion of the emperor and China would eventually come to passes In a letter of December 2, 1697 46 forwarded through Verjus, Leibniz asked Bouvet to let him know what had been sent to China and what had been received therefrom. He also requested more information on the geography and languages of China and its neighbors, even asking for a word for word rendition of the Lord's Prayer in the various Asiatic tongues known to the missionaries. He asked for a clearer discussion of the Chinese characters than was then available in Europe, and a more penetrating critique of China's ancient history and chronology. Finally, he requested once again that the Jesuits observe carefully what could be adopted from China for Europe, and begged permission to use Bouvet's book in an anticipated reprinting of the Novissima Sinica. Dedicated to Louis XIV, Bouvet's work is a hymn of praise for the wisdom, tolerance, and morality of the K'ang-hsi emperor.

43. See infra, p. 35. 44. On Bouvet's c a r e e r s e e especially Michaud's Biographie universelle; also Du Halde, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 113-125. The engravings were published in black and white and color by P i e r r e Giffort of P a r i s in the folio volume p r e pared by Bouvet and entitled L'estat present de la Chine en figures (1697). This rare work contains 43 engravings; two of the Chinese emperor in ceremonial d r e s s , the mandarins of the nine different orders in court costume, s o l d i e r s in battle attire, Tartar and Chinese ladies in fine apparel, and two of Buddhist p r i e s t s in their ceremonial robes. 45. Leibnizbriefe,

105, 1-2.

46. Bodemann, op. cit., pp. 355-357.

33

At the suggestion of Leibniz, Kochanski too submitted at the end of December, 1697, a memorandum to be f o r warded to Bouvet.47 Of the total of twenty-six questions in Kochanski's list, the first four concern the relationship of Asiatic to European languages, the theory of Chinese poetry, and the relationship of Chinese style to calligraphy. His next two questions relate to Chinese chronology and the calendar, presumably with the idea of comparing them to their Christian counterparts. The following two questions deal with possible natural differences, such as the working of magnetic instruments. In the ninth question the Jesuits in China are asked to observe and report on what instruments and procedures are used in the manufacture of articles such as metals, silks, and leather goods, and the observation is made that "often the knowledge of slight r e semblances will give great impetus as well as opportunity to make better devices."48 This is followed by a question on the carrying of heavy loads. Technical questions, obviously of interest to the Polish court, on dyes for silk and techniques in the manufacture of porcelain vases are followed by two questions on the cultivation and use of rice. A series of questions on tea and other plants and vegetables follows, with the hope that these may be adapted to European conditions.49 A set of inquiries on the Chinese language, its peculiarities, appeal, and universality are reminiscent of the series of fourteen questions which Leibniz addressed to Andreas Muller, the Berlin linguist, as early as 1679, and to which he never received satisfactory answers.^o Kochanski1 s final question inquires about Chinese alchemy and the search for the philosopher's stone.From the nature of these questions,5i it is evident that Kochanski and the Poles, stimulated by Leibniz, were also concerned about learning in detail of practical affairs that

47. Dickstein, éd., loc. cit., pp. 276-281. 48. Ibid., p. 278. 49. In connection with P o l i s h and European i n t e r e s t s in the f l o r a of China, s e e the w o r k of the P o l i s h Jesuit Father M i c h e l Boym, entitled Flora Sinensis (Vienna. 1656). F o r d e t a i l s on B o y m and the e a r l y P o l i s h contributions to the China m i s s i o n s©6 R o b e r t Châbrié, Michel Boym. Jésuite Polonais et lo fin des Ming en Chine (1646-1662) ( P a r i s . 1933). e s p e c i a l l y pp. 31-33. 50. F o r an English translation of L e i b n i z ' questions s e e D. F. Lach, " T h e Chinese Studies of A n d r e a s M u l l e r , " Journal of the American Oriental Society, L X (1940), 568-569. 51. In a l e t t e r of Bouvet to L e i b n i z of N o v e m b e r 4. 1701, the Jesuit r e m a r k s : " I am keeping the questions of M r . Scrokius [ ? J and those of F a t h e r

34

might be of concrete help to scholars, artisans, f a r m e r s , and manufacturers. Leibniz also r e c e i v e d in January, 1698, a list of questions f r o m Dr. Lucas Schröck, a physician of Augsburg. A correspondent of Father Kircher and Gottlieb Spizel, Schröck had been interested in China and the Indies f o r many y e a r s . Apparently the questions sent to Leibniz r e lated to botany and drugs f o r the most part. Schröck asked that his questions should be relayed to Bouvet and through him to Andreas Cleyer, the Dutch botanist in Java. Though Bouvet evidently forwarded Schröck's questions to C l e y e r , I have so f a r not been able to determine whether Cleyer r e ceived and answered the queries of the Augsburg physician. 5 2 ïn his subsequent letters to Bouvet,- Leibniz volunteered to put his philosophical calculus at the disposal of the Jesuits as a help in rendering intelligible the ancient Chinese philosophers.53 He had long cherished the hope of developing, as did many of his contemporaries, an ars combinatoria, or a technique of deriving complex concepts by c o m bining a few relatively simple concepts assumed to be primitive. In particular, he f e l t that mathematics could be e f f e c t i v e l y employed in analyzing and explaining philosophical concepts in t e r m s of what he called " a universal characteristic. "54 Bouvet, in particular, became interested in Leibniz' binary arithmetic and the two men sought to penetrate the mystery of J Ching's t r i g r a m s and hexagrams through it.55 Both considered such an analysis to be an excellent means f o r winning the confidence of K'ang-hsi. Leibniz also volunteered information about his arithmetic machine, and suggested that when perfected it might s e r v e as a suitable gift to the Chinese emperor. In reply to four Leibniz letters written within three months, Bouvet wrote f r o m La Rochelle on February 28, 16 98,56 shortly b e f o r e sailing f o r China again, that he had Cochanski to answer them myself, or by several of my colleagues" ( B i b l i o thèque Nationale, MSS a. f. f. 17240). Kochanski. who died in 1700, never r e ceived answers to his questions. The " M r . Scrokius" r e f e r r e d to here was the Augsburg physician, Lucas Schröck. 52. Leibnizbriefe, 838, 1. 53. Bodemann, op. cit., p. 359. 54. See K. Huber. Leibniz (Munich, 1950), pp. 25-26; also Merkel, Leibniz und China, p. 15, n. 33. 55. Details in Lach, "Leibniz and China," loc. cit., pp. 442-446. 56. Leibnizbriefe, 105, 9-12; on Bouvet's departure and for an account of his role in urging French trade with China, see E. W. Dahlgren. Les relations

35

received the questions of Kochanski and Schröck and that he would reply to them personally. Promising to remind Grimaldi of his pledge to Leibniz, Bouvet volunteered to use his free time in China for researches that would ultimately benefit the arts and sciences of Europe. He also promised to interview Andreas Cleyer in Batavia on behalf of Schröck, if his ship touched that port in the Indies. Finally Bouvet enclosed in this letter a Manchu version of the Lord's P r a y e r - - a document which still reposes in the Leibniz papers at Hanover. Upon his arrival in Peking, after a good voyage of seven months, Bouvet on September 19, 1699, addressed another letter to Leibniz assuring him of his intention to set to work immediately "to answer what you have wished to know on those points which do not require lengthy study."57 Bouvet also informed Father de Fontaney, who sailed back to France in 1699, of Leibniz' interest and suggested that the Jesuit communicate with him upon arriving in Europe. Bouvet also submitted Leibniz' questions to Father Visdelou for study and comment. For Leibniz' edification he included a list of objects taken from France to China and a summary account of those brought from China to France. He wrote: Concerning those things that we have c a r r i e d from China they a r e proportionately more ordinary [than the mathematical instruments, etc. taken to China] and l e s s curious. If you except s e v e r a l of the s e l e c t e d books, of which I believe we have sent you the list, and s e v e r a l of the paintings, some of their best drugs, such as ginseng and tea intended for the mouth of the Emperor, some of their jewels, s e v e r a l pieces of material, satin and other types, as well as some of their dragon p o r c e lains intended for the use of the E m p e r o r , some of their white rabbits approaching alabaster in strength and whiteness, some t r e e s made of glass, s e v e r a l musical instruments, some of their seeds, some paper 11 or 12 pies in length made in the time of the Ming dynasty, some lacquered works, s e v e r a l e s s a y s on many s o r t s of drugs unknown in Europe, along with s e v e r a l samples of their grains, the remainder of the things do not merit being recorded. But we hope seriously in the future to extract from the Chinese other things much more useful to Europe, so as not to become inferior to them by so freely placing our best knowledge at their disposal, thus benefitting from the excellent advice you have given us.58

commerciales et maritimes (Paris, 1909), pp. 109-111. 57. Leibnizbriefe, 105,

entre la France 13.

et les côtes de l'océan

58. Ibid., 105, 14 verso. 36

pacifique

Bouvet also included information on ginseng that Mentzel had evidently asked for, and informed Leibniz that he had forwarded Schrock's questions to Cleyer in Batavia upon his arrival in Canton. The Amphitrite on which he traveled to China had not stopped in Batavia. Bouvet wrote a separate short letter to Father Kochanski on September 20, 1699. It was never delivered, because Kochanski had died in the mean time.59 Leibniz himself was excited by his new role as intermediary on China. In a letter of December 14, 1697, to his friend, the Electress Sophie Charlotte of Brandenburg, he explained his relations with Verjus and Bouvet. He commented: " I shall have to hang a sign on my door with the words: bureau d'adresse pour la CJiine."60 Nor was his wit without point, for he hoped to enlist the support of the electress in another phase of his scheme for cultural exchange. Having watched the interest of the Brandenburg rulers in China, Africa, and elsewhere develop, Leibniz looked to Berlin as the center from which his own ideas of cultural exchange could best be worked out. Thus, while Leibniz prepared the Novissima Sinica, he corresponded with numerous Jesuits, travelers, and European scholars in the hope of turning the Jesuit mission to greater profit in Europe. His support of the Jesuit position in the Rites Controversy helped him to maintain cordial relations with the group that could best provide him with information about China. Impressed as he was with Chinese civilization, he felt that Europe was in danger of losing a golden opportunity to learn from China. Indeed, one must speculate as to how many of his own ideas were stimulated by his study of the "Middle Kingdom." As we shall show below (pp. 51-52), the establishment of the calendar monopoly as a state enterprise in Prussia owed a debt to Leibniz and China. Though the hypothesis is so far impossible to document, it may be suggested that the merit system of examination for civil service adopted by Prussia in the last decade of the seventeenth century was possibly influenced by the example of China. This and other problems of cultural exchange must await further investigation. Without question, however, Leibniz believed

59. Ibid., 728, 38.

60. O. Klopp, op. cit., Vol. X, p. 42. 37

that one of the major conscious objectives of the Jesuit mission should be the acquisition of useful information for Europe. Bouvet and other Jesuits took him seriously. The great Jesuit collections of the eighteenth century, such as the Lettres £difiantes . . . and the M&moires concernant I'histoire etc. . . .des Chinois, were at least partially inspired by Leibniz1 requests for information.

38

chapter 3 P R O T E S T A N T MISSIONS AND BRANDENBURG

The Novissima Sinica as a call to Protestants to emulate the example of the Jesuits in the promotion of a mission to China has already been thoroughly surveyed. 1 A further recounting of Leibniz' mission interests would serve no useful purpose were it not possible to relate his drive for Protestant missions to the parallel development in Brandenburg of an effort to participate in the lucrative overseas trade that had benefited the Protestant powers of England and the United Provinces so handsomely throughout the seventeenth century. If one recalls the importance of the land route in Leibniz' thought, his literary relations with the Jesuits in Europe and China, and his efforts to create a chain of academies for cultural transmission, it can be seen with greater clarity that Leibniz hoped that Brandenburg might take the lead in promoting Protestant missions. Such a work of cultural exchange would not, he believed, be subject to the internecine difficulties confronted by the Jesuits, and the Berliners, he hoped, would consciously strive to adapt the best of China to the use of the West. Though Leibniz was no bigoted Protestant or narrow-gauged nationalist, he was truly concerned, as he remarks in the work here translated, that Germany might "fail itself and Christ"2 by not taking a more active part in Asiatic missions and in the penetration of Asiatic culture. The times, too, seemed particularly appropriate for the organization of a Protestant mission. 3 In the Wars of the 1. See especially the excellent study by R. F. Merkel, Leibniz und die China-Mission. 2. See infra, p. 83. 3. For a general discussion of European affairs in the last decade of the seventeenth century see chap, ii of J. B. Wolf, The Emergence of the Great Potvers, 1685-1715 (New York. 1951); on Germany see B. Erdmannsdorffer. 39

League of Augsburg against France, the German states. Catholic and Protestant alike, had with their British and Dutch allies thwarted the ambitions of Louis XIV in Germany and the Low Countries, and had beaten back the attacks of the temporarily revived Turkish empire. In the Baltic region, the Protestant Swedes still maintained their ascendancy, and indeed appeared to be gaining strength at a rapid rate. Though Poland and Russia still remained somewhat outside the calculations of the ordinary run of European statesmen, the contribution of John Sobieski to the defeat of the Turks, and the activities of the young Tsar Peter in Russia led far-sighted diplomats and observers to conclude that the alliances and counteralliances of the future would increasingly have to take into account the Slavic powers. To Leibniz, in this period of his life, Berlin clearly seemed destined to occupy a central position in Protestant Europe, a key spot in his plans for the reunion of Christendom, and a leading role in relations with the powers of eastern Europe and Asia. Leibniz personally occupied a uniquely strategic position in Protestant Europe.4 In his post as councillor to the newly elevated elector of Hanover, his knowledge of European statecraft and German petty court diplomacy was profound and practical. Through correspondence with leading diplomats and intellectuals, he opened avenues of information and highways of influence far beyond anything achieved by less talented and industrious persons. Written in Latin, German, and French, his letters reached out to England, Holland, Sweden, Poland, Russia, and China as he sought support for his numerous and elaborate plans of church reunion, cultural transmission, or universal language. He also sought diligently to learn as much as possible about languages, customs, and beliefs of eastern Europe and Russia with an eye to the probable future role of Slavic Europe in diplomatic and intellectual affairs.5 In his correspondence with English, Dutch, Swiss, and Swedish Protestants, Leibniz, during the last decade of the Deutsche Geschichte vom Westfälischen Frieden bis zum Regierungsantritt Friedrichs des Grossen, 1648-1740 (Leipzig. 1932). Vol. II, especially chaps, iv-vi. 4. For the details of Leibniz' activities at this period, s e e Fischer, op. cit., chaps, xiii and xiv. 5. Cf. Guerrier, op. cit., pp. 2-3; also Benz. op. cit., pp. 1 - 5 .

40

seventeenth century, sought to arouse interest in Protestant missions and in the acquisition of knowledge about China.6 To the Oxford mathematician, J. Wallis, he disclosed his hopes for a Protestant mission, and to the r e nowned Bishop of Salisbury, Gilbert Burnet, he stressed the works that Protestants might perform in the undeveloped mission field of Asia.7 He deplored the British and Dutch concentration upon trade to the exclusion of missionary and intellectual intercourse with eastern Asia. He pressed his English and Dutch correspondents to take the utmost advantage of the t s a r ' s visits to their countries to urge upon him the opening of the land route to the Protestants. In his letters to Nicolas Witsen particularly, Leibniz stressed the need for winning the t s a r ' s co-operation. 8 To the Swiss numismatist, André Morell, he wrote: " F o r it is only because of their knowledge of the sciences of Europe that the Jesuits are well received there [in China], and in this regard the Protestants need not yield to them, and may even be able to surpass them."9 With the Swedish linguist and master of ceremonies at the Stockholm court, J. G. Sparfvenfeldt, Leibniz exchanged views on the land

6. Merkel, Leibniz und die China-Mission, pp. 189-202, gives details on Leibniz 1 correspondence with a number of non-German Protestants. 7. See ibid., pp. 190-199. and T. E. S. Clarke and H. C. Foxcroft, A Life of Gilbert Burnet, Bishop of Salisbury (Cambridge, 1907), p. 349. 8. Witsen visited Moscow in 1664-1665 in the entourage of the Dutch ambassador, Jacob Boreel. While in Moscow, he spoke, according to his own testimony, with "Samoyedes, Tartars, and P e r s i a n s " about the geography and language of Siberia (see J . F . Gebhard, Hel leven mn Mr. Nicolaas C. Witsen 1641-17171 Utrecht, 1881 ] Vol. I, pp.. 32-33, 42-46). He spent the years from 1665 to 1692 gathering'data for his famous work, Noord en Oost Tartarye. . . . (Amsterdam, 1692). The exceedingly r a r e first edition of this work may be found in the former imperial library at St. Petersburg (Cordier, Biblioteca Sinica, col. 1945) and in the library of the University of Leyden (Gebhard, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 421-422). Benz, op. cit., p. 7, n. 13, remarks that Witsen traveled in Siberia. From the detailed account in G. Cahen, Les cartes de la Sibérie au xviiie siècle, p. 60, it appears that Witsen probably never traversed Siberia, but used Russian and western European sources in the preparation of his famous map and his geographical studies. In a letter of 1691 to the president of the Royal Society in London, Witsen notes that he corresponded regularly with persons having special knowledge of Siberia. He a s s e r t s : " I have had letters every year from Pekin . . . " (Gebhard, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 251-252). Witsen was recognized in Leibniz' day as a leading European authority on Siberia and the land route, and on the occasion of T s a r P e t e r ' s visit to Holland, Witsen acted as his host. 9. Gaston Grua, ed., G. W. Leibniz. Textes inédits d'après les manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Provinciale de Hanovre (Paris, 1948), Vol. I, p. 107. 41

route to China.10 Basic to his correspondence with Lutherans and Calvinists alike is Leibniz' assumption that doctrinal differences should be put aside in deference to the great work of Christianizing and cultural exchange that lay before them. Characteristically, he saw that with the prospect of achieving a common good he might have an opportunity to advance his project of church reunion. Thus, while striving to maintain firm relations with the Jesuits, Leibniz sought to stimulate the Protestants of Europe to emulate Jesuit mission activity for the greater good of their faith, nation, and mankind. Because of the delicacy of his position in trying to retain the friendship of the Jesuits while urging the Protestants to become their c o m petitors, Leibniz' phraseology and references in the preface to the Novissima Sinica are sometimes intentionally vague and obtuse. 11 Of the German Protestant powers Brandenburg was by all odds the most progressive and powerful. Though Hanover and Saxony figured prominently in his calculations (particularly while Augustus of Saxony sought to be elected king of Poland), the Brandenburgers seemed to be the only Protestants (particularly after Augustus turned Catholic) capable of acting out the parts for which Leibniz cast them. The Elector Frederick III (who became King F r e d e r i c k I in P r u s s i a in 1701) was neither aggressive nor ambitious, but Leibniz sought by working through F r e d e r i c k ' s councillors and wife to thrust the king into leadership. Having inherited a well-organized army and an incipient bureaucracy, F r e d e r i c k III possessed strength and potential influence far beyond any of the other Protestant princes of Germany. The Brandenburgers also appeared to have an interest in non-European projects that set them somewhat apart from their German Protestant contemporaries. Throughout his long reign, F r e d e r i c k William the Great Elector 10. Harold Wieselgren, ed., Leibniz Bref till Sparfvenfeldt, 1695-1700 (Stockholm, 1883), pp. 12-13; 32; 43. As an aide to the Swedish emissary to Russia, Sparfvenfeldt was in Moscow from 1684 to 1687. He had conversed with Spathari about the land route and had brought back to Sweden a copy of Spathari's map (c/. L. S. Bagrow, "Sparwenfeld's Map of Siberia," loc. cit pp. 65-66). 11. See especially Leibniz' letter to J. J. Cuneau, state councillor and a r chivist in Berlin, of April 26, 1697, as printed in Berlinische Bibliothek, II (1748), 792-794.

42

and father of Frederick III, had sought to release Brandenburg from its dependence upon the Dutch in foreign trade. Frederick William, early in his reign, had begun to compete with the Dutch in Moscow, and in 1647 had sought for the first time to organize an East India Company of his .own.12 In this early project the Brandenburg ruler had been spurred on by a malcontent Dutch ex-admiral, Gijsel van L i e r . For four years the planners had sought financing, but the best efforts of the Great Elector and his colleagues had failed to produce the necessary capital.13 Gijsel's plan had been revived in 1660 after the conclusion of the Swedish-Brandenburg wars. Feeling unable to carry it out alone, the Berlin court on this occasion sought to enlist the co-operation of the Emperor Leopold I.14 Supported by the influential Bishop of Wiener-Neustadt, Christian von Rojas, the Gijsel project had appealed to Leopold sufficiently to have him hire the Margrave Hermann of Baden-Baden as technical adviser and liaison officer. The emperor, moreover, had enlisted the advice and support of the Spanish, much to the Great Elector's consternation. When Frederick William finally realized that the emperor had appropriated his plans and had converted them into an Austrian project, he hastily withdrew in 1661 and turned his attention for a time away from such East Indian ventures. It was not until the Habsburgs were at war with the Turks in 1683 that the court in Berlin once again tried to work out the East India project. The year before, Benjamin Raule had founded the Brandenburg-African Trading Company; at that time he had also urged the creation of a sister concern to deal with the East Indies.is In connection with Raule's scheme, an attempt had been made by Brandenburg to get discontented British Protestants of seafaring background to leave Restoration England and settle in Brandenburg. 16 As the elector's plans matured, he had 12. See the details of the plan in Richard Schlick, Brandenburg-Preussens Kolonial-Politik (Leipzig, 1889), Vol. II, pp. 1-8. 13. Cf. Christian Voigt, " A d m i r a l G i j s e l s van Lier, ein verdienter Helfer des Grossen Kurfürsten," Brandenburgica. Monatsblatt der Gesellschaft für Heimatkunde und Heimatschutz in der Mark Brandenburg, XXX111(1924), 28-35. 14. See Eduard Heyck, "Brandenburgisch-deutsche Kolonialpläne," Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins,Neue Folge, II (1887), 160-165. 15. Schlick, op. cit.,

Vol. I, p. 138.

16. Ibid.,

43

pp. 216-222.

THE GREAT

ELECTOR

Reading from the lower border clockwise: "1685, the year of our Lord, Forty-fifth year /as ruler/ of Brandenburg, Portrait of the Great Elector, the Warrior/?/ The highly intelligent Elector, P'ing-ssU /.Tried-rich = peace = P'ing/ the Holy Emperor/~?J. " 44

invited in 1684 to Berlin the French adventurer, Jean Baptiste Tavernier, whose travels had been widely read throughout Europe, and by the elector himself.n Probably impressed by the violent anti-Dutch sentiments of T a v e r nier, the Great Elector had o f f e r e d him the post of director of Brandenburg's East Indian ventures.18 It was hoped that Emden could be used as Brandenburg's port, and that discontented British privateers and merchants would cast their lot with Brandenburg. The British who could be r e cruited w e r e but a fraction of the required number, so that this project, like its predecessors, was gradually laid aside. With the failure of his maritime plans, the Great E l e c tor had become interested, as Louis XIV had at the same time, in the possibility of establishing direct and beneficial connections with China. At this juncture it is important to r e c a l l that France and Brandenburg had been allies against Austria in the early phases of the w a r s of 1683 to 1699. The dispatch of the French Jesuit mission of 1685 had been watched closely at Berlin by the Great Elector and his sinological advisers, Andreas Müller and Christian Mentzel. The attention of the French Jesuits, too, had been focused upon Berlin in 1684-1685 by the visit of Father Philippe Couplet to the capital of electoral Brandenburg. The reputation of Brandenburg as a center of growing interest in China had already spread widely in western Europe. Andreas Müller, originally a student of Near Eastern languages, had begun to study China seriously around 1667, when he became provost of the Nicolaikirche in Berlin. The materials and books on China collected by G i j s e l van L i e r and other Dutchmen had been assembled at Berlin and constituted the nucleus around which the Far Eastern c o l lection of the Prussian L i b r a r y had been built. Intrigued by the Chinese language, Müller had been one of the e a r l i est European scholars to seek a simple solution, or key, to the riddle of Chinese. Having learned of M ü l l e r ' s p r e o c cupation with Chinese studies and with a Clavis Sinica (Key to Chinese), Leibniz in 1679 had addressed a s e r i e s of 17. The German translation of T a v e r n i e r ' s Voyages appeared at Nürnberg in 1681 entitled Vierzig-Jährige Reise-Beschreibung. • • . Like the Jesuits of this period, Tavernier was interested in the opening of the land routes to Asia. For Leibniz' interest in Tavernier in 1692 see Michaelis, ed., op. cit pp. 66-70. 18. For T a v e r n i e r ' s proposals see Schück, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 225-227.

45

fourteen questions to the provost regarding his Clavis and the peculiarities of the Chinese language.19 Though Leibniz had evidently not received satisfactory answers, Müller continued with financial support from Frederick William to propound what he thought might become a simple code to Chinese. Meanwhile, Müller had published a number of works synthesizing the Jesuit and travel accounts of China. He had also prepared in 1679 the first Catalogue of Chinese books in the Berlin library.20 This list included twenty-five Chinese titles (or in Western terms around 300 volumes), at a time when the Clement catalogue of the Royal Library in Paris listed but four Chinese entries.21 A revised edition of Müller's Catalogue had appeared in 1683 with the noteworthy addition of a number of the Chinese dynastic histories. 22 Meanwhile, the Emperor Leopold had requested Müller to undertake the cataloguing of the Chinese works in the Vienna collection. Müller never was able to take advantage of this offer, for he had fallen out of favor at Berlin in 1685 when he was formally accused of heresy by his religious opponents. Shortly before his death in 1694, Müller allegedly destroyed his Key to Chinese, an act which Leibniz repeatedly lamented. Upon Müller's disgrace, his work in Chinese studies at Berlin had been taken over by the sixty-year old Christian Mentzel, physician to Frederick William, at the request of the elector.23 Mentzel wrestled for fifteen years with the problem of producing a formula for the understanding of Chinese. Beginning in 1677, Mentzel had corresponded with Andreas Cleyer and had received from the Indies books, drawings, drugs, and specimens of plants and-ani19. See Lach, "The Chinese Studies of Andreas Müller," loe. cit., pp. 568569. 20. Müller's Catalogas of 1679 is reproduced in Hermann Hülle, "Die Fortschritte der ostasiatischen Sammlung," Fünfzehn Jahre Königliche und Staatsbibliothek (Berlin, 1920), p. 193. 21. It indicates that the total Chinese collection of the Royal library in Paris had been inherited from the collection of Cardinal Mazarin. It appears that the four entries include about thirteen fascicles. No titles were given. invenFor a reproduction of the Clement catalogue see H. Omont, Anciens taires et catalogues de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris, 1911), Vol. Ill, p. 257. 22. Anderer Theil des Catalogi der sinesischen Bücher bey der Churfürstl. Brandenburgischen Bibliothek zu Cölln an der Spree (Berlin, 1683). 23. C. Artlet, Christian Mentzel. Leibartz des Grossen Kurfürsten, Botaniker und Sinologe (Leipzig, 1940), p. 25; for Mentzel's place in sinological studies see R. F. Merkel, "Deutsche Chinaforscher," Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, XXXIV (1951), 83. 46

mals. After 1685 he had also corresponded with Thomas Hyde, the Cambridge orientalist, and with Louis Picques, the Paris linguist, on problems pertaining to the Chinese language. Mentzel had also benefited greatly from the visit of Father Couplet to the Berlin court, and corresponded with the Jesuit until his departure for China.24 a portrait of the Great Elector surrounded by Chinese characters had been prepared in 1685.25 Though these characters have sometimes been attributed to Mentzel, the likelihood is that the Chinese inscription was prepared by Father Couplet (or by the Chinese who accompanied him) and the calligraphy in its final form perhaps copied by Mentzel from Couplet's original.26 Though the portrait had been clearly intended as a gift to the K'ang-hsi emperor, no evidence exists that it, or any copy of it, ever arrived in China. Probably with the failure of Frederick William's plans for commercial enterprises in the East, the inscribed portrait was put aside. In 1688, the year of the Great Elector's death, Mentzel had prepared a manuscript on the basis of Father Couplet's translation, entitled Confuzii Philosophi Sinensium primarii Th-Hio, i.e.magna scientia . . . and dedicated it to the Emperor Leopold I. With the demise of his Berlin master Mentzel turned increasingly to Vienna for support of his Chinese studies. Though he retained his post at the Berlin library until 1692, when he was succeeded by his son, Mentzel concentrated his attention upon Chinese history, botany, and language. In 1696, the year before the first edition of the Novissima Sinica, Mentzel published his Kurtze chinesische Chronologie, essentially a German translation of Couplet's work on chronology, which had appeared a decade before. As an appendix to this chronological study, Mentzel included a summary in German of the embassy of Ysbrandt Ides, an account paralleling that of Adam Brand and included by Leibniz in the Novissima Sinica.

24. Artlet, op. cit., pp. 22-30. 25. Reproduced in Berthold Laufer, "Christian A r t in China," des Seminars für orientalische Sprachen, XII (1910), 102.

Mitteilungen

26. On Couplet's relations with Mentzel see G. S. Bayer, Museum Sinicum in quo Sinicae linguae et litteraturae ratio explicatur (St. Petersburg, 1730), Vol. I, pp. 62-63.

47

In Mentzel's last y e a r s he, too, like Müller, possessed visions of producing a key to Chinese.27 In 1697 Leibniz sent a copy of the newly published Novissima Sinica to the physician and r e c e i v e d in return an elegantly bound copy of Mentzel's Chronologie, which the author requested Leibniz to f o r w a r d to Father Bouvet, with the request that Bouvet, in turn, present it as a gift to the emperor of China.28 instead of carrying this work to China, Bouvet evidently left it in France. Today it may be seen in the manuscript d i v i sion of the Bibliothèque de l'Institut in P a r i s . Ever on the watch f o r new and fundamental scholarly advances, Leibniz addressed a letter to Mentzel in 1698 requesting further information about the Chinese language and reiterating many of the questions he had asked Müller almost two decades before.29 While F r e d e r i c k III, the successor of the Great Elector, was either unable or unwilling to c a r r y ahead his f a t h e r ' s interests in China, a number of his most influential adv i s e r s continued in the last decade of the seventeenth century to correspond with Leibniz on Chinese a f f a i r s . It was not, however, until the f a l l of Danckelmann in 1697 that the E l e c t r e s s Sophie Charlotte and Leibniz possessed significant influence with the elector. Like his Jesuit contemporaries, Leibniz r e a l i z e d that in an age of monarchy and particularly in countries where the king enjoyed the right of cuius regio, eius religio, great strides to the realization of his objectives could best be taken by winning the support of the ruling monarch. In a letter to the numismatist André Morell, he frankly states in 1697: F o r to win the understanding [espritJ of a single man, such as the tsar or the monarch of China, and to turn it to good ends; by inspiring in him a zeal for the glory of God and f o r the perfection of mankind, this is more than winning a hundred battles, because on the will of such men several million others depend.so

Of particular interest in Leibniz' campaign to win the support of F r e d e r i c k III is his correspondence with 27. Cf. M. V. LaCroze, "De libris Sinensibus bibliothecae regiae Berolinensis," Miscellanea Berolinensia, I (1710), 85; and J. Klaproth, Verzeichnis der chinesischen und mandschuischen Bücher und Handschriften der königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin (Paris, 1822), p. 124. 28. Bodemann, op. cit., p. 182. 29. Ibid., p. 183. 30. Grua, ed., op. cit., I, 116.

49

Ezechiel S. Spanheim, the renowned numismatist who acted as Brandenburg's envoy in Paris from 1680-1689 and again from 1698 to 1701.31 While in the French capital, Spanheim learned to know La Chaize and to become interested in the Jesuit mission to China. Spanheim was also an ardent bibliophile, and during his sojourn in Berlin between 1689 and 1698 sold his library to the elector. Always hopeful of accomplishing great ends by winning the support of secular rulers, Leibniz wrote to Spanheim on April 27, 1697: A Jesuit of M u n s t e r n a m e d F a t h e r C l e r f has sent me a c l e a r - c u t account of the l i b e r t y authentically a c c o r d e d to the C h r i s t i a n r e l i g i o n by the m o n a r c h of China, and I have had it printed along with s e v e r a l additional p i e c e s taken f r o m my c o r r e s p o n d e n c e . A n d I s u g g e s t in my p r e f a c e that it w o u l d be d e s i r a b l e f o r the P r o t e s t a n t c h u r c h e s to p a r ticipate by sending men d i s t i n g u i s h e d by their piety and their l e a r n i n g to g a t h e r this abundant h a r v e s t of the L o r d in f i e l d s that now a p p e a r to b e open. I s h a l l g i v e o r d e r s , s i r , that you b e sent s o m e c o p i e s of this t r i f l i n g w o r k [ b a g a t e l l e } which w i l l b e w o r t h m o r e than a l a r g e w o r k if it is a b l e to help a r o u s e the z e a l of p o w e r f u l and w e l l - i n t e n t i o n e d persons. 3 2

In his letters to Sophie Charlotte. Leibniz repeatedly sought to arouse her interest in China. In 1697 he volunteered to instruct her in the teachings of Confucius, the history of the ancient Chinese rulers, the Chinese conception of immortality and on "matters which are a trifle more c e r t a i n . " 3 3 The electress, however, appears not to have taken advantage of his offer. While gathering data on China and other Asiatic countries, Leibniz worked diligently to make Berlin into the intellectual capital of northern Europe. J. J. Cuneau, secret councillor to Frederick III and keeper of the electoral archives, relayed many of Leibniz' letters to key f i g u r e s 3 4 and kept the philosopher informed of developments in Berlin. Indeed, Cuneau corresponded with Leibniz regularly after 1695 and, as we have seen, furnished him with Jesuit 31. See Victor Loewe, Ein Diplomat und Gelehrter Ezechiel von Spanheim (1629-1710) (Berlin, 1924), especially the appendix. 32. Translation from the letter as quoted inMerkel, Leibniz und die China Mission, p. 39. 33. Klopp. op. cit.,

Vol. X, p. 42.

34. Variations on his name appear Couneau.

such as Cuno, Chuno, Counneau, and

50

materials that Brandenburg agents in Russia had received from Dutch and Muscovite agents who kept track of the Jesuits and their a c t i v i t i e s . 3 5 Meanwhile, Father Vota, whose interest in the land route we have already remarked upon, gained considerable influence both in Dresden and Berlin in his role as privy councillor to the new Saxon king of Poland, and he, too, advised that the Berlin court direct its attention to commercial enterprises in A s i a . 3 6 In connection with Prussia's adoption of the Gregorian calendar in 1700, Leibniz sought to apply his knowledge of Chinese institutions to this reform. His former professor, Erhard Weigel of the University of Jena, had urged that the Chinese experience with calendars be used to meet Germany's needs.37 In the description of the Chinese calendar contained in Verbiest's Astronomia Europaea . . . (chap.IX) an account is included of the preparation of the calendar by the state-appointed council at Peking and of the general sale of the calendar to the population. Verbiest wrote (p. 27): "The calendar is placed on sale for the public (and there is no household howsoever great or needy which does not purchase a new calendar each year) and in all provinces copies of it are printed to the number of some tens of thousands a n n u a l l y . " 3 8 The calendar as a state monopoly was one form of revenue not previously exploited in Europe. Weigel hoped that it could be used as a source of

35. Berlinische Bibliothek, I (1747), 257-260; 709; on the activities of Johann Reyer Czaplietz.the Brandenburg envoy, see Posselt, op. cit., p. 451; on Ludwig von Printzen's work in forwarding Brandenburg's relations with Russia see Dukmeyer, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 320-321. 36. Vota, who had been to Russia and Persia, while acting as confessor to Sobieski, had begun to correspond with the Elector Frederick III in 1690 and somewhat later with the Electress. Hopeful of converting the electoral couple to Catholicism, Vota played an important role in gaining Rome's and Vienna's acceptance for the idea of crowning Frederick as Prussian king. On Vota's and Wolf von Lüdinghausens' influence at Berlin see Erdmannsd'orffer, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 125-131. 37. See his memorial to the Diet of Regensburg in 1697 as quoted in G. C. Guhrauer, ed., Leibnitz deutsche Schriften (Berlin, 1840), Vol. II, p. 473. Cf. also A. Harnack, Geschichte der königlich preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (Berlin, 1900), Vol. I, pp. 64-66. 38. In 1645 an imperial edict forbade private printers to issue calendars without the seal of the Board of Astronomy. Apparently this rule was enforced until the late eighteenth century in China. See Ta-Ch'ing hui-tien shihli ("The Collected Statutes of the Great Ch'ing Empire") (Peking: Kuang-hsli, ed., 1899), ch. 1104; and Ch'ing shih-lu (Mukden, 1937), Vol. CCCXXIV, pp. 36-52.

51

revenue for the founding of a German (not Prussian) academy. Desirous of meeting objections that funds might not be available for the establishment of an observatory at Berlin and the employment of permanent staff members for the projected Academy of Sciences, Leibniz proposed that sale of the calendar by the state might contribute to the maintenance of the Prussian Academy. In this matter he appears to have received the support of Professor Samuel R. Reyher of the University of Kiel. Such a monopoly was established in 1700. Though this Chinese idea received a trial in Prussia, the calendar monopoly never yielded enough by itself to finance the Academy. Especially important in the last five years of the seventeenth century was Leibniz' correspondence with Daniel Jablonski, court preacher to Frederick III and coplanner with Leibniz of the Prussian Academy of Sciences.39 In their correspondence and in numerous proposals forwarded by Leibniz to Berlin the dominating note was that the new Academy should have the dual purpose of helping to introduce the evangelical gospel in Asia, and of seeking intellectual communication with Russia, China, Persia, and India. In 1700 Leibniz wrote in a memorial to the Elector Frederick III: On several occasions I have deplored among other matters in published writings that only the Roman missionaries have a chance to turn to use the incomparable inclination and desire for learning of the Chinese monarch and his subjects. On that point I could say a great deal in detail and with particulars. It seems as if God has in this case also elected and especially prepared Your Electoral Highness to act as a great instrument. Particularly since nowhere among the Protestants has such a foundation been laid as in Berlin for Chinese Literatura et propaganda fide. Moreover, and with the help of the special dispensation of Providence, the uncommonly good personal relations with the Czar opens a wide gate to Great Tartary and to magnificent China. Through this gate not only goods and wares but also light and knowledge may find an entrance into this other civilized world and "AntiEurope," and many would therefore be attracted to seek the protection of Your Electoral Highness, especially since it is also known that of all European natural products almost nothing is more sought after and

39. See Harnack, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 30-52; see also J. Kvacsala, ed., " D . E. Jablonsky's Briefwechsel mit Leibniz . . . , " in Acta et Commentationes Imp. Universitatis Jurievensis (1887), pp. 50; 59; Guhrauer, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 78-161.

52

p r i z e d in China than a m b e r . It is just as if God willed that Your Electoral Highness should also have this natural advantage.40

The reference to amber in this memorial is a further clear indication of Leibniz' determination to place Brandenburg at the forefront of the Protestant mission to China. Conscious of the need to have something to sell, Leibniz had evidently learned from the Jesuit writers, or perhaps from the account of Adam Brand, that true amber was highly prized in China for the manufacture of ornaments, incense, and drugs. Though China had some resources of her own, amber had been imported from Burma for centuries and was a regular item in the European trade with China. Since Samland in East Prussia possessed one of the world's greatest natural deposits of true amber, Leibniz hoped that Prussian amber would provide a valuable exchange commodity. The Swedes and Danes carried amber to China in the eighteenth century. From their experience it would appear that Leibniz was probably far too optimistic in his judgment of its potential importance in trade with China.41 The clear combination in Leibniz' thought of missions, trade, and cultural exchange was revealed repeatedly in his correspondence as well as in the book under survey here. Reference at this point should be made to the inclusion of Adam Brand's description of the journey to China of the Muscovite embassy of 1693, 1694, and 1695 in the Novissima Sinica. A native of the Hansa city of Lubeck, Adam Brand in company with eleven other Germans made the long trek across Siberia to Peking. Especially favored in Russia were the German Protestants. In Brand's words: f o r the convenience of c o m m e r c e , the Lutherans, as w e l l as other Protestants, are a l l o w ' d the f r e e e x e r c i s e of their Religion in the city of Musco, as well as in some other places of Muscovy. . . . The R o man Catholics and Jews, who have not been tolerated till of late, only e x e r c i s e their devotion in a private house, and the Jesuits a r e e x cluded f r o m that benefit also. . . A 2 40. As quoted in Harnack, op. cit.,

Vol. II, pp. 80-81.

41. See J. R. Morrison, A Chinese Commercial Guide. . . . (2d ed • Macao 1844), pp. 100-101; and EL H. Pritchard, The Crucial Years of Early AngloChinese Relations, 1750-1800 (Pullman, Wash., 1936), p. 190. Amber gifts were carried to Peking by the Dutch embassy of Pieter Van Hoorn in 16661667 (Fu, op. cit., p. 111). 42. A. Brand, op. cit.,

pp. 5-6. 53

Upon his return from China, Brand set up business for a short while in Lübeck and earned for himself the reputation of being a learned m e r c h a n t . 4 3 He also entertained numerous Russian dignitaries and on the occasion of the tsar's visit to Germany he housed thirty of the imperial entourage. 44 The publication in 1697 of the brief account of his travels in the Novissima Sinica was the first notice generally received in Europe of the Russian embassy to China.45 Indeed, it was a kind of advance notice for the book that followed in 16 98.46 Meanwhile, Brand evidently planned a return trip to China. He was distracted from this project, however, by an offer from the Elector Frederick III to act as commercial adviser.47 It is not known whether Leibniz had anything to do with Brand's appointment, though Jablonski clearly did.48 Though Brand later planned an expedition to Persia, and in this he hoped also to sell amber, it likewise failed to materialize. After Frederick became king in Prussia in 1701, Brand continued to work at Berlin. His association with the early cameralist Paul Jacob Marperger is particularly worthy of attention for the understanding of Prussian commercial aspirations in the first two decades of the eighteenth century. It is only by acquaintance with the diverse motives at work in Leibniz' mind that one can read the Preface to the Novissima Sinica with understanding and can appreciate the reasons for his including in the body of the work such varied materials. The place of Brandenburg in Leibniz' 43. See C. G. Jocher, Allgemeines Gelehrtenlexikon (Leipzig, 1750), Vol. I, cols. 1330 and 1331; also Schlick, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 187, n. 153. 44. See the account of B r a n d ' s life and activities in J. Beckmann, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 463-471. 45. Original of this entitled " K u r z e Relation von Adam Brand's Reise und Gesandtschaft von Moskau nach China (1692)" is n. VI, 622 of the Leibnizkandschriften at Hanover. Leibniz translated it f r o m German into Latin. This may have come to Leibniz through S. R. Reyher (cf. Leibniz to Cuneau, Berlinische Bibliothek, II [1748], 792-794). Leibniz commented that this work pleased him " m o r e than a little" (cf. the extract of a letter, printed in the Neue Zeitungen von Gelehrten Sachen das Jahr 1722 [ L e i p z i g ] , p. 544). 46. M a r p e r g e r republished B r a n d ' s revised journal with an introductory preface by Brand under the title Neu-vermehrte Beschreibung seiner grossen Chinesischen Reise. . . . The third printing of this extended version was at Lübeck in 1734. In his P r e f a c e Brand tells how he met one of his f o r m e r t r a v eling companions, Philip Schultz, in a village near Danzig, and how he r e freshed his own memory of China in conversations with Schultz. 47. C. R. Jöcher, op. cit., 48. A. Brand. Neu-vermehrte

Vol. I, p. 133. Reise-Beschreibung,

54

Preface.

calculations is attested by his correspondence, by his work in the establishment of the Prussian Academy, and by his confident reference to Frederick III in the Preface here translated as "the most wise Elector, who bows to no one in his ardent zeal for the propagation of true piety and belief." 4 9 Though Brandenburg (and later Prussia) failed to achieve prominence in relations with Asia, the influence of Leibniz upon Brandenburg, and through Leibniz and others the influence of China upon Brandenburg, are essential features of the intellectual, commercial, and religious history of Germany in the late seventeenth century.

49. Infra,

p. 85. 55

c h a p t e r

4

RECEPTION AND INFLUENCE No figures are available on the number of copies of the Novissima Sinica that Leibniz had printed in 1697 and 1699. It was certainly not customary for publishers of his day to print and bind copies in anything like the numbers usually produced today. Though we do not know how many copies were sold, Leibniz' correspondence reveals that he sent most of his wide circle of scholarly friends at least one copy and sometimes dispatched as many as four copies to a single individual. From these figures it would not appear that the Novissima Sinica had the slightest interest for Leibniz as a commercial enterprise. Indeed, before his death in 1716 the work had become unavailable, largely it would seem because of his determination to see that copies of it were placed in the hands of strategically located and influential persons. Among those to whom he sent several copies were Gilbert Burnet, André Morell, E. von Spanheim, J. J. Cuneau, J. Bouvet, H. Ludolf, A. Magliabecchi, A.Verjus, and B. Ramazzini.i Spanheim and Cuneau distributed their copies in Berlin. Verjus evidently gave out copies in Paris. Magliabecchi sent one of his copies to the Jesuit General in Rome.2 Whether or not Bouvet took a copy back to China in 1699 is a question that cannot be definitely answered.3 Nor is there any con-

1. Bernardino Ramazzini was p r o f e s s o r of medicine at the universities of Modena and Padua. Leibniz sent him three copies. See Bodemann, op. cit p. 230. 2. Cf. Leibniz' letter to Laurentius Hertel, librarian at Wolfenbuttel, in J. Burckhard, Historia Bibliothecae • • • Wolffenbutteli (Leipzig, 1746), Pt. Ill, p. 351. 3. Had Bouvet c a r r i e d the Novissima Sinica to China it would probably have been deposited in the P e - t ' a n g library in Peking which w a s founded in 1697. Though it has not been possible to consult the P e - t ' a n g catalogue itself,

56

temporary indication that copies reached Russia, even though the catalogue of the imperial library of St. Petersburg prepared in 1873 indicates (items 516 and 517) that both editions of the Novissima Sinica are in its collection of works in foreign languages. Shortly after Leibniz' death J. F. Feller republished the Preface of 1699 in the Otium Hanoveranum (Leipzig, 1718). It was also later included in L. Dutens (ed.), Opera Omnia . . . (1768). So far as can be determined the Novissima Sinica was not widely reviewed outside of Germany. In Tentzels Monatliche Unterredungen for February, 1697, the first edition was digested and reviewed at length. Indeed, Tentzel's German account practically made it unnecessary for any but the most interested of his readers to look at the original Latin work. Nor is this merely a summary. Tentzel compares the various sections of the Novissima Sinica to other contemporary works relating to China. With regard to the Preface itself he comments (p. 124): I e s t e e m L e i b n i z ' o p i n i o n s on t h e C h i n e s e m u c h h i g h e r than t h o s e of I s a a c V o s s i u s t h a t w e c o n s i d e r e d in A p r i l , 1 6 9 5 , p. 3 1 7 . 4 F o r w h i l e t h e o n e [ V o s s i u s ] r e v e r e s e v e r y t h i n g and e v e n h o l d s up f o r a d m i r a t i o n by the E u r o p e a n e v e r y t h i n g C h i n e s e , t h e o t h e r [ L e i b n i z ] on t h e c o n t r a r y p u t s both in t h e b a l a n c e s i d e by s i d e and j u d g e s a c c o r d i n g to h i s own e x c e l l e n t u n d e r s t a n d i n g in w h a t w a y s o n e p e o p l e c a n c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e other.

In his review Otto Mencke, editor of the Acta eruditorum,5 terms the Preface "elegant" and congratulates the author on his learning and his recognition of the values that China might have for Europe. It is by reference to Leibniz' correspondence that we gain a more detailed picture of the reception accorded the or the photographic copies of it which presumably exist, an outline of the catalogue indicates that a work or works by " L e i b n i t i u s " may be found in the linguistic section of that library. See Theo Rtihl, "Catalogus Bibliothecae Domus P e - t ' a n g Congregationis Missionis Pekini Sinarum 1862 |Auctore Joanne Baptista Thierry, C. M . ] , " Monumenta Serica, IV ( 1 9 3 9 - 4 0 ) , 615. 4. Vossius, canon of Windsor, published at London in 1685 his Variarum observationum liber. Tentzel r e m a r k s of chapter xiv of this work that V o s s i u s holds that the a r t i s t i c and scientific advances of all other peoples a r e a s nothing when compared with those of the Chinese (see Tentzels Monatliche Unterredungen as cited above). 5. Vol. for 1697, pp. 4 9 1 - 4 9 3 . Reproduced also in Dutens, ed., op. cit., Vol. IV, pp. 8 7 - 8 8 . 57

Novissima Sinica. The Jesuits, in particular, expressed their appreciation in l e t t e r s to Leibniz. Bouvet avowed that he had read and r e r e a d the Preface, each time with mounting pleasure. 6 Le Gobien commented that Leibniz argued justly on the problems involved in the r i t e s question and remarked that "nothing escapes your great enlightenment."'' The P a r i s and Rome leaders of the mission also expressed their regard for Leibniz' effort to show that the Jesuits, while remaining tolerant of Confucian social and civil customs, did not permit their Chinese conv e r t s to practice idolatry .8 Not all Jesuits, however, felt kindly toward the Hanover philosopher. As e a r l i e r mentioned {supra, p. 24), Papebroch in Antwerp viewed his emphasis upon cultural exchange as dangerous to the r e l i gious objectives of the mission.9 Johannes Clerf, the conf e s s o r at Mllnster, objected to the inclusion of his name in the Preface of 1697, particularly because Leibniz published the Suarez work relayed through Clerf, in a book clearly calling upon the Protestants of Germany to begin competing with the Jesuit mission. More particularly, however, Clerf probably felt uneasy about the reactions of his superiors to his part in this episode. 1 0 With these few exceptions it can be a s s e r t e d that the Jesuits generally responded with enthusiasm to the Novissima Sinica, particularly because of the stand taken by Leibniz on the Rites Controversy. Indeed, throughout the remaining y e a r s of his life, Leibniz continued to correspond with the Jesuits, and despite their setbacks in Europe and China, he stubbornly supported their cause. Among the German Protestants, and even among those of high political station, considerable enthusiasm was voiced over the message of the Novissima Sinica. In Holland, England, and Sweden, however, Leibniz' call failed to evoke the response he had hoped for. In a letter to Cuneau of October 7, 1697, Leibniz summarized the reception as follows:

6. Leibnizbriefe, 105, 7. C. Kortholt, Leibnitii 8. J. Burckhard, op. cit., of Annibal Marchetti of Jan. 9. Baruzi, op. cit.,

1. epistolae . . . (Leipzig, 1738), Voi. Ili, p. 5. p. 351; also Bodemann, op. cit., p. 161 for letter 2, 1701.

pp. 100-101.

10. Burckhard, op. cit.,

58

p. 351.

I am delighted to l e a r n that my p r e f a c e to the Novissima Sinica has not displeased enlightened and w e l l intentioned persons in your q u a r t e r [ B e r l i n ] , and I count you among the f i r s t of these. I am convinced as you a r e that if the able men of the Protestant party should gain a f o o t hold in China and win the good g r a c e s of the monarch, they would outshine the m i s s i o n a r i e s of the Roman party. But I do not yet s e e any such great disposition among either the Dutch o r the English even though I have sent my little book to England as food f o r thought. 11

Nor does one find by consulting the materials available today that either the English or the Dutch responded with great alacrity to Leibniz' suggestion of a Protestant mission. Indeed, the Electress Sophie of Hanover herself ironically remarked that the first task should be "to make some good Christians in Germany without going so far away to fashion them."12 Though Leibniz was not pleased with the immediate response to his call for a Protestant mission, numerous mission projects were proposed and some undertaken within the following decade that owed a considerable debt to his inspiration. Among the first of the Protestants to take more than a polite interest in Leibniz' proposal was August Hermann Francke, one of the leading lights at the University of Halle. In a communication of July 9, 1697, Francke expressed his "personal thanks for this magnificent work. "13 On August 7 Leibniz replied: "If I receive no other fruit from my small book Novissima Sinica than that you were inspired to thoughts more and more in common with mine, I should have attained enough and more than enough and should not have labored in vain."i4 Francke seriously considered the possibilities of the land route for missionary enterprise as well as Leibniz' suggestion that he should work toward the establishment of a chain of schools modeled on the orphanage and university of Halle.15 Francke, like Papebroch, was always more concerned, however, about the salvation of souls than about cultural exchange. At the suggestion of Hiob Ludolf, Francke finally concentrated 11. Berlinische Bibliothek, I (1747), 139. 12. Klopp, op. cit., Vol. VIII, p. 189. 13. Leibniz 14. 15. 1880),

See the appendix of Francke-Leibniz correspondence in R. F. Merkel, und die China-Mission, pp. 214-215. Ibid. Gustav Kramer, August Hermann Francke, Ein Lebensbild (Halle, Vol. I, pp. 258-259. 59

his efforts on the training of missionaries for the Near East and India. After 1706 he acted as official adviser to the Protestant mission sent out to Tranquebar on the east coast of India under the auspices of the Danish crown.i 6 Though Francke continued corresponding with Leibniz, the Halle theologian and mission adviser never shared the Hanover philosopher's enthusiam for the cultural mission. An even clearer example of Leibniz' influence upon missionary thought can be discerned in the writings and projects of Konrad Mel, the Lutheran court pastor at Königsberg. By 1701, Mel had completed a manuscript entitled Die Schauburg der evangelischen Gesandschaft ("The Prospectus of the Evangelical Mission").n Relayed to Berlin, this work came to Leibniz1 attention. Mel's manuscript provided the practical framework for the Eurasiatic mission of Protestants that Leibniz had conceived of in the Novissima Sinica. After establishing by biblical quotations the need for such a mission, Mel outlined the practical advantages of such an enterprise for both the Protestant cause and the prosperity of Brandenburg. He wrote: Since the alliance of your Royal Majesty of Prussia . . . of 1698 . . . to the effect that the aforementioned Tsarist Majesty grants unrestricted traffic and commerce to the subjects of Brandenburg . . . a certain hope has developed that we shall be able to obtain a definite agreement . . . to permit travel through Muscovy to China, is Since we have by way of Muscovy a much shorter and easier route to the great Chinese empire than others, . . . what conclusion can we draw but that God Himself opened this way to us over which to carry the Gospel. . . . Finally, because of the fortunate situation and the natural advantages of Prussia, as manifested in the production of amber, for all the neighboring countries--a commodity highly prized by Oriental peoples, and especially by the Chinese. . . . In addition to this excellent and abundantly-supplied expedient, it must also be recognized that our Most Powerful King and Electoral Highness will be impelled equally by God in this holy undertaking. England seeks to promote the Gospel in the West Indies; Holland does its share by converting the heathens 16. J. F. Fenger, Geschichte pp. 7-20.

der Trankebarschen

Mission (Grimma, 1845),

17. On the question of Mel's authorship see G.Kramer, "D. Konrad Mel, ein Missionsschriftsteller, aus dem Anfang des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts," Allgemeine Missions-Zeitschrift, IX (1882), 481-493. This work has sometimes been incorrectly attributed to A. H. Francke (cf, A. Reichwein. China and Europe [London, 1925], pp. 83-84). lb. Cf. supra,

p. 17. 60

of the E a s t Indies. We want the salvation of the C h i n e s e to be won through our w o r k and r e a l e f f o r t s . 1 9

Though this p a s s a g e might have been w r i t t e n by L e i b n i z h i m s e l f , Mel f o l l o w s this d i s c u s s i o n with p r a c t i c a l s u g gestions on the training of m i s s i o n a r i e s f o r s e r v i c e in A s i a , on the r o l e of the A c a d e m y of S c i e n c e s a s a s e l e c t i o n board, and on the need f o r m o r e books on R u s s i a and China. Among the w o r k s commended to the attention of p r o s p e c tive m i s s i o n a r i e s a r e L e C o m t e ' s Memoires and Leibniz* Novissima Sinica.20 Here in p r a c t i c a l f o r m then w a s p r e sented the Leibnizian f o r m u l a f o r m i s s i o n a r y penetration through c u l t u r a l and c o m m e r c i a l exchange. Such a m i s s i o n n e v e r m a t e r i a l i z e d , however, p r i m a r i l y b e c a u s e of the i m mediate p r o b l e m s f a c i n g the new kingdom of P r u s s i a in a Europe torn in many d i r e c t i o n s by the w a r s of the Spanish S u c c e s s i o n . It has a l s o been s u g g e s t e d that the m i s s i o n f a i l e d b e c a u s e of its e m p h a s i s upon c o m m e r c i a l and c u l t u r a l exchange and b e c a u s e it lacked genuine r e l i g i o u s stimulus.21 In his e f f o r t to win the c o - o p e r a t i o n of G i l b e r t Burnet, B i s h o p of Salisbury and founder of the English Society f o r the Propagation of the Gospel in F o r e i g n P a r t s , L e i b n i z encountered d i f f i c u l t i e s . Though Burnet and his distant r e l a t i v e , T h o m a s Burnet de Kemney, knew of L e i b n i z ' Novissima Sinica, the Bishop of S a l i s b u r y f a i l e d to s h a r e Leibniz' i n t e r e s t in the c u l t u r a l m i s s i o n and took an opposing stand on the R i t e s C o n t r o v e r s y . M o r e o v e r , the entire problem of the House of H a n o v e r ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p to English s u c c e s s i o n beclouded the i s s u e f o r L e i b n i z ' plans of Protestant reunion and English c o - o p e r a t i o n . Though L e i b n i z r e c e i v e d communications and additional m a t e r i a l s on China f r o m his English c o r r e s p o n d e n t s , 2 2 h i s plans f o r 19. The entire tract is included a s Appendix II in Merkel, Leibniz und die China-Mission, pp. 225-250; s e e especially p. 232. 20. Ibid., p. 236. 21. Cf. R. BUckmann, "Die Stellung der lutherischen Kirche des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts zur Heidenmission . . . , " Zeitschrift fiir kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirckliches Leben, II (1881), 385-389. 22. Two documents of special interest a r e the manuscript No. 625 in the Hanover collection forwarded through Duke Adolph of Cambridge in which a plan is outlined for an expedition to China a c r o s s Russia, and in the Leibnizbriefe, 330, 35-36, a handwritten copy of a letter from Chusan dated November 22, 1701. Probably written by Dr. J a m e s Cunningham, this letter a p p e a r s 61

co-operative enterprises failed to rouse them to action. In his sermons of 1703 and 1704, Salisbury stressed the need for Protestant missions in China, but his program varied markedly from that proposed by Leibniz.23 Among the Dutch and the Swedes, too, Leibniz' proposals for united Protestant action failed to evoke a favorable response. This can be accounted for by his determination to place Brandenburg-Prussia at the head of such an enterprise, by the ability of the Dutch and the British to penetrate Asia by the sea route, and by their unwillingness to share either trade or mission profits with their non-maritime Protestant colleagues. Scepticism about the practicality of Leibniz' plan also existed in Berlin, and particularly among his colleagues in the Academy of Sciences. Though both Francke and Mel were members of the academy, their confreres were generally less well disposed towards Leibniz' grandiose ideas. The death of Mentzel in 1702 left Berlin without a sinologue and marked the beginning of Frederick I's disgruntlement with Leibniz. Neither the calendar project nor the numerous other proposals, such as the development of a native silk industry, seemed practical enough to provide the Academy with necessary funds.24 M. V. dela Croze, the successor of Mentzel at the Royal Library, concentrated his attention upon the study of Near Eastern languages and steadfastly refused, despite urging from Leibniz, to continue with Muller's and Mentzel's schemes for working out a key to Chinese.25 La Croze also failed to collect books from the Far East, and the Chinese collection at Berlin remained thereafter virtually unaugmented for the next century. Leibniz retained a high degree of influence at Berlin only until 1705, the year when his patroness, Sophie Charlotte, died. Thereafter, he was consulted only at rare in edited f o r m in R. K e r r , ed., General History Travels (London, 1824), Vol. IX, pp. 553-558.

and Collection

of Voyages and

23. A detailed discussion of Burnet's interests may be found in Merkel, Leibniz und die China-Mission, pp. 193-200; see also Clarke and Foxcroft, op. cit., pp. 348-350; 377-378. See also M e l ' s Missionarius evangelicus published in 1711 and designed to win the co-operation of the British. 24. Fischer, op. cit., pp. 227-235. For Leibniz' numerous projects see the memorials to Frederick I as reproduced in Harnack. op. cit., Vol. II. pp. 142-147. 25. Charles St. Jordan, Histoire (Amsterdam. 1741), pp. 71-73.

de la vie et des ouvrages

62

de M. La

Croze

i n t e r v a l s despite the fact that he had been made president of the A c a d e m y f o r l i f e . F r e d e r i c k ' s decision to bypass L e i b n i z s t e m m e d in part, at least, f r o m the philosopher's enthusiasm f o r distant p r o j e c t s , such as the China mission, at a t i m e when the king w a s p r i m a r i l y concerned with P r u s s i a in its new r o l e in the European state s y s t e m . Leibniz, however, retained his enthusiasm. He w r o t e in 1705 to a f r i e n d in Emden: " I f I w e r e young, I would go to Muscovy and even penetrate China to establish an exchange of knowledge by means of my binary arithmetic."26 The P r e f a c e h e r e translated and L e i b n i z ' c o r r e s p o n d ence of his last y e a r s s e r v e d to stimulate among his f e l l o w philosophers an interest in Chinese r e l i g i o u s , m o r a l , and rational thought. The preoccupation of the Jesuits with the r i t e s p r o b l e m s also inspired the c o n t e m p o r a r i e s of L e i b n i z to investigate Chinese ideas in relation to W e s t ern traditions. F o r example, Johann F . Buddeus, p r o f e s s o r of m o r a l philosophy at Halle, was prompted by perusing the Novissima Sinica to w r i t e in 1701 a p o l e m i c a l tract on Chinese ancestral rites.27 His c r i t i c i s m of the Jesuits, and indirectly of Leibniz, brought the R i t e s C o n t r o v e r s y into German Protestant university c i r c l e s , and thereby c e n t e r e d s e r i o u s attention on Chinese thought. Buddeus' w a s but the f i r s t of a s i z a b l e number of tracts written on this subject by G e r m a n s c h o l a r s . Of s p e c i a l importance in this connection a r e the l e c t u r e s held by G e o r g e Prit,28 at the U n i v e r s i t y of L e i p z i g in 1704, 1706, and 1708. The last of these dealt with the r e p o r t s of the legation of Cardinal de Tournon which w a s in China f r o m 1705 to 1707. Like others, P r i t took L e i b n i z ' position as his point of d e p a r ture. L e i b n i z himself w a s f o r c e d in the f i r s t decade of the eighteenth century to enter the l i s t s in defense of the p o s i tions he had taken in the Novissima Sinica. He w r o t e a l i t t l e t r e a t i s e entitled De cultu Confucii civili around 1700.29 26. As quoted in Bodemann, op. cit., p. 289. 27. "Exercitatio Historico-Moralis de Superstitioso mortuorum apud Chinenses cultu" in Awlecta historiae philosophicae (Halle, 1706), pp. 261-305. 28. Published in 1709 at Greifswald and entitled De controversia circa cultum, Confutio a Sinensibus praestitum, in ecclesia Romana inter societatis Iesu patres et Dominicanos hoc tempore acerrime agitata. See also Zacharias Grapo, De Theologia Sinensium (Greifswald, 1710). 29. Cf.

Merkel, Leibniz

und die China-Mission,

63

pp. 99-102.

In his correspondence with the Jesuits, particularly B a r tholomaeus des Bosses, and in his commentaries on the tracts of the Fathers Longobardi and De Sainte-Marie he spelled out in concrete terms his reasons f o r supporting the Jesuits in their contention that the Confucian rites w e r e of a c i v i l rather than a religious character.30 Nicholas Remond, a Platonist philosopher and councillor of the Duke of Orleans, wrote to Leibniz f r o m P a r i s on A p r i l 1, 1715: " Y o u r preface to the Novissima Sinica is that of a superior man and full of great insight, but you do not enter into an examination of the philosophic system."3i This c r i t i c i s m inspired Leibniz in the last y e a r s of his l i f e to w r i t e a lengthy discussion in a letter to Remond of his understanding of Chinese philosophy, particularly the NeoConfucianism of Chu Hsi. Study of Chinese thought as interpreted by Chu Hsi only became possible in Europe after the publication of his Hsiao hsiieh ( " M o r a l Philosophy f o r Youth") as translated and summarized by Father Francisco Noel.32 in his interpretation of Chu H s i ' s thought Leibniz denied the allegation that the Chinese are materialists and insisted that they possess a concept of God as a spiritual being in their idea of Li.33 The stimulus to study Chinese philosophy that emanated f r o m the Novissima Sinica continued vigorous throughout the eighteenth century. Christian W o l f f , the systematizer of Leibniz, studied the Chinese classics in Noel's version, held their moral philosophy to be s i m i l a r to his own, and expressed fervent admiration, as Leibniz did, f o r their statecraft.34 W o l f f ' s writings on China a r e heavily indebted to the P r e f a c e translated here, as he himself indicated in his footnotes. George Eberhard Bilfinger,35 p r o f e s s o r of philosophy at Tubingen and one of W o l f f ' s students, extended the study of Chinese moral philosophy by comparing Chinese and Christian ethical principles. In his history of 30. See Lach. " L e i b n i z and China," loc. cit., pp. 448-450. 31. C. J. Gerhardt, ed., Die philosophischen Schriften von G. W. (Berlin, 1875), Vol. Ill, p. 640. 32. In the worn 1711).

entitled

Sinensis

imperii

libri

classici

Leibniz

sex . . . ( P r a g u e

33. See Lach, " L e i b n i z and China," loc. cit., pp. 450-452. 34. See f o r details D. F. Lach, " T h e Sinophilism of Christian W o l f f , " Journal of the History of Ideas, XIV (1953), 561-574. 35. Specimen 1724).

doctrinae

veterum

Sinarum moralis

64

et politicae

(Frankfurt

Jacob Brucker, inaugurates his discussion of Chinese philosophy by reference to the Novissima Sinica. Similarly, J. F. Reimann in his outline history of Chinese philosophy printed in 1727 cites Leibniz as one of the twenty-five authorities to be consulted on this s u b j e c t . 3 7 Throughout the remainder of the eighteenth century in theological and philosophical treatises, the references to the Novissima Sinica are numerous, particularly with regard to the statement that missionaries should be sent to Europe to instruct in moral philosophy and statecraft. In summary, it can be asserted that the Novissima Sinica served to stimulate the Jesuits in their study of Chinese civilization, and encouraged them to publish their encyclopedic works of the eighteenth century on China. Linguistic studies received stimulus, too, from Leibniz1 concern with the languages of Siberia and eastern Asia. In a letter to Bouvet in 1707, he even suggested that the Jesuits should send Chinese animals, machines, models, and scholars to Europe as well as their own accounts of Chinese agriculture, industry, and s c h o l a r s h i p . 3 8 He also helped thcough his later letters to keep alive the interest of Jesuits and non-Jesuits in the land route to China, and in the possibility of closer intellectual collaboration through scientific societies. Several of Leibniz' projects, particularly those connected with the financing of the Academy of Sciences, were indebted to his interest in China. The influence of this tract upon Protestant missionary thought and activity is matched by the interest it stimulated for the serious study of China for the benefit of Europe. The enthusiasm that Leibniz felt for China also helped to produce the Sinophilism that characterized the era of the Enlightenment. Indeed, the Marquis D'Argens in the dedication to Confucius in his Lettres chinoises (The Hague, 1755), imagined that the Chinese sage and Leibniz were probably holding frequent conversations in another world. That the Novissima Sinica attracted such widespread attention can be attributed to the fact that no other scholar of Leibniz' philosophy,36

36. Historia 846-906.

critica

philosophiae

. . . (Leipzig, 1744), Vol. IV

•

Pt

2 OD • . w

37. Historia philosophiae Sinensis . . . (Brunswick), p. 25; see also J. B. Carpzov, Mencius sive Mentius . . . (Leipzig, 1743). 38. Leibnizbriefe, 105, 43-44.

65

stature and reputation possessed such a lively interest or such a hopeful belief in the benefits that Europe might derive f r o m contact with the great, non-Christian c i v i l i z a tion of eastern Asia.

66

PREFATORY NOTE TO THE TRANSLATION

In preparing this translation I decided that paragraphing along modern lines might make the translation e a s i e r to read and would not distort Leibniz 1 meaning unduly. The paragraphing in the translation does not follow Leibniz 1 paragraphing. Roman numerals have therefore been included in both the translation and the Latin text to make r e f e r e n c e simpler. The reader will therefore find it e a s i e r to r e f e r to the original if he will f i r s t look f o r the nearest Roman numeral in the translation and then find its c o r responding number in the Latin text. While seeking to remain as true to the Latin as possible, I have also sought to render Leibniz 1 meaning, as I understood it, into readable modern English. A s with most translations, this one is a rather poor reflection of the original in terms of style, pungency, and concise e x p r e s sion. I can only hope that it represents a faithful rendering of the original's meaning.

67

tRansUtion of LeiBniz' pReface [I] I consider it a singular plan of the fates that human cultivation and refinement should today be concentrated, as it were, in the two extremes of our continent, in Europe and in Tschinai (as they call it), which adorns the Orient as Europe does the opposite edge of the earth. Perhaps Supreme Providence has ordained such an arrangement, so that, as the most cultivated and distant peoples stretch out their arms to each other, those in between may gradually be brought to a better way of life. I do not think it an accident that the Muscovites, whose vast realm connects Europe with China and who hold sway over the deep barbarian lands of the North by the shore of the frozen ocean, should be led to the emulation of our ways through the strenuous efforts of their present ruler and their Patriarch, as I understand it, in agreement with him.2 [II] Now the Chinese Empire, which challenges Europe in cultivated area, and certainly surpasses her in population, vies with us in many other ways in almost equal combat, so that now they win, now we. But what should I put down first by way of comparison? To go over everything, even though useful, would be lengthy and is not our proper task in this place. In the useful arts and in practical experience with natural objects we are, all things considered, about equal to them, and each people has knowledge which it could with profit communicate to the other. In profun1. Disputes over the proper word for China have a long history in European literature. Leibniz here reflects the concern of his contemporaries to standardize the name after the manner of the best Portuguese and Jesuit sources. For discussion of this problem as seen by Leibniz1 colleagues consult Tentzels Monatliche Unterredungen, I (1689). 487; 1213. See also infra, p. 84. 2. Tsar Peter I and the Patriarch Adrian. On this conclusion Leibniz was in error, for Adrian opposed the t s a r ' s Westernization program.

68

dity of knowledge and in the theoretical disciplines we are their superiors. For besides logic and metaphysics, and the knowledge of things incorporeal, which we justly claim as peculiarly our province, we excel by far in the understanding of concepts which are abstracted by the mind from the material, i. e., in things mathematical, as is in truth demonstrated when Chinese astronomy comes into competition with our own. 3 The Chinese are thus seen to be ignorant of that great light of the mind, the art of demonstration, and they have remained content with a sort of empirical geometry, which our artisans universally possess. They also yield to us in military science, not so much out of ignorance as by deliberation. For they despise everything which creates or nourishes ferocity in men, and almost in emulation of the higher teachings of Christ (and not, as some wrongly suggest, because of anxiety), they are averse to war. They would be wise indeed if they were alone in the world. But as things are, it comes back to this, that even the good must cultivate the arts of war, so that the evil may not gain power over everything. In these matters, then, we are superior. [Ill] But who would have believed that there is on earth a people who, though we are in our view so very advanced in every branch of behavior, still surpass us in comprehending the precepts of civil life ? Yet now we find this to be so among the Chinese, as we learn to know them better. And so if we are their equals in the industrial arts, and ahead of them in contemplative sciences, certainly they surpass us (though it is almost shameful to confess this) in practical philosophy, that is, in the precepts of ethics and politics adapted to the present life and use of 3. Though the Jesuits at Peking w e r e not able to teach the Copernican astronomy openly because of the papal ban upon Galileo's works, they w e r e n e v e r t h e l e s s able to provide practical demonstrations of the superiority of the Western astronomical and mathematical s c i e n c e s . For a general discussion of the Jesuit position on Galileo s e e Pasquale D'Elia, "The Spread of Galileo's D i s c o v e r i e s in the Far East," East and West (Rome), I (1950), 156-165. Indeed, through their contributions to astronomy and the revision of the Chinese calendar they established t h e m s e l v e s firmly at Peking. See especially A. Rowbotham, op. cit., pp. 85-87. During the course of the seventeenth century at least s i x t y - f i v e Western works on astronomy, including d i s c u s s i o n s of the heliocentric theory, were translated into Chinese by the Jesuits. See T s i e n Tsuen-hsuin, "Western Impact on China through Translations, A Bibliographical Study." (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago. 1952). Table II, p. 220.

69

mortals. Indeed, it is difficult to describe how beautifully all the laws of the Chinese, in contrast to those of other peoples, are directed to the achievement of public tranquility and the establishment of social order, so that men shall be disrupted in their relations as little as possible. Certainly by their own doing men suffer the greatest evils and in turn inflict them upon each other. It is too truly said that "man is a wolf to man." Great indeed is our quite universal folly, in which we, exposed as we are to natural injuries, heap woes on ourselves, as though they were lacking from elsewhere. [IV] What harm, then, if reason has anywhere brought a remedy? Certainly the Chinese above all others have attained a higher standard. In a vast multitude of men they have virtually accomplished more than the founders of religious orders among us have achieved within their own narrow ranks. So great is obedience toward superiors and reverence toward elders, so religious, almost, is the relation of children toward parents, that for children to contrive anything violent against their parents, even by word, is almost unheard of, and the perpetrator seems to atone for his actions even as we make a parricide pay for his deed. Moreover, there is among equals, or those having little obligation to one another, a marvellous respect, and an established order of duties. To us, not enough accustomed to act by reason and rule, these smack of servitude; yet among them, where these duties are made natural by use, they are observed gladly. As our people have noticed in amazement, the Chinese peasants and servants, when they bid farewell to friends, or when they first enjoy the sight of each other after a long separation, behave to each other so lovingly and respectfully that they challenge all the politeness of European magnates. What then would you expect from the mandarins, or from Colai?4 Thus it happens that scarcely anyone offends another by the smallest word in common conversation. And they rarely show evidences of hatred, wrath, or excitement. With us respect and careful conversation last for hardly more than the first 4. A reference to the Grand Secretaries of the Metropolitan Administration who were familiarly designated Kolao during the Ch'ing dynasty. Consult w. F. Mayers, The Chinese Government. A Manual of Chinese Titles . . . (Shanghai, 1878), p. 14. 70

days of a new acquaintance—scarcely even that. Soon familiarity moves in and circumspection is gladly put away for a sort of freedom which is quickly followed by contempt, backbiting, anger, and afterwards enmity. It is just the contrary with the Chinese. Neighbors and even members of a family are so held back by a hedge of custom that they are able to maintain a kind of perpetual courtesy. [V] To be sure, they are not lacking in avarice, lust, or ambition. In these regards what Harlequin, Emperor in the Moon in the theater, is accustomed to repeat of the Lunar people is also true of them:5 everything is done just as it is here (c'est tout comme icy). Hence the Chinese do not attain to full and complete virtue. This is not to be expected except by Heaven's grace and Christian teaching. Yet they temper the bitter fruits of vice, and though they cannot tear out the roots of sin in human nature, they are apparently able to control many of the burgeoning growths of evil. [VI] Who indeed does not marvel at the monarch of such an empire? His grandeur almost exceeds human stature, and he is held by some to be a mortal god. His very nod is obeyed. Yet he is educated according to custom in virtue and wisdom and rules his subjects with an extraordinary respect for the laws and with a reverence for the advice of wise men. Endowed with such eminence he seems fit indeed to judge. Nor is it easy to find anything worthier of note than the fact that this greatest of kings, who possesses such complete authority in his own day, anxiously fears posterity and is in greater dread of the judgment of history, than other kings are of representatives of estates and parliaments. Therefore he carefully seeks to avoid actions which might cast a reflection upon his reputation when recorded by the chroniclers of his reign and placed in files and secret archives.6 5. A reference to the popular comedy of the late seventeenth century called L'empereur dans la lune usually performed with Evaristo Gherardi as Harlequin. See Maurice Sand, The History of the Harlequinade (London, 1915), Vol. I. pp. 76-83. 6. Leibniz evidently understood something of the Chinese custom of accumulating data for the preparation of the "dynastic histories." From the missionary writers he was probably familiar with the Chinese practice of compiling in scrupulous detail the record of each ruler. On the "dynastic histories" and their preparation see Charles S. Gardner, Chinese Traditional Historiography (Cambridge, 1938), pp. 87-100. 71

[VII] Until the reign of the present emperor, Cam Hi, 7 a prince of almost unparalleled merit, the magistracy opposed any disposition on the part of the ruler to grant the Europeans freedom to practice the Christian religion legally and publicly until its purity should be investigated. This objection rested on no better pretext than that the prince's great and salutary decision to introduce European arts and sciences into China might lead to ruin. In this matter he seems to me to have had individually much more foresight than all his officials. It is further evidence of his personal good judgment that he has brought European and Chinese civilization together. For he was taught from childhood in all things Chinese a discipline almost beyond the capacity of a private individual. For example, in the mandarins' examinations, 8 on the basis of which distinctions and magistracies are granted, he is considered a very acute judge. With his astonishing ability to write the characters (which to them is the highest erudition), he could even improve the composition of a petition drawn up by the most learned of Christians.9 And so, while understanding primarily the learning of his own people, he was still not a bad judge of European knowledge when he first received a taste of it from Father Ferdinand VerbiestiOof Bruges in Belgium, of the Society of Jesus, a pupil of Jo7. The K'ang-hsi emperor, who ruled China f r o m 1661 to 1722, was one of the most eminent monarchs in Chinese history. In his reign the Ch'ing (Manchu) dynasty reached great heights. See the article by Fang Chao-ying entitled "Hsuan-yeh" in Arthur W. Hummel, ed.. Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period (Washington, 1943), Vol. I, pp. 327-331. Leibniz' interest in the K'ang-hsi emperor is commented upon in greater detail in Lach, "Leibniz and China," loc. cit., VI (1945), 439-441. 8. The Jesuit missionaries and Leibniz were greatly impressed by the merit system of examination for public offices as it operated in China. It was in the last decade of the seventeenth century that examinations for public officials were introduced in Prussia, the f i r s t such experiment in Europe. For the influence of the Chinese example upon the development of the French and British systems of examination see S. Y. Teng, "Chinese Influence on the Western Examination System," Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, VII (1943), 267-312. Chinese influence upon the development of the Prussian system has yet to be examined. 9. For an example of the s o r t mentioned here see Louis Le Comte, op. cit., pp. 34-35. 10. From 1669 until his death in 1688, Verbiest was co-director of the Bureau of Astronomy at Peking, and the Jesuit closest to the K'ang-hsi e m peror. After 1671, he instructed the young ruler regularly in Euclidean geometry, astronomy, philosophy, religion, and music. Cf. Rowbotham,op. cit., pp. 92-96; Pfister, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 338-362. 72

hann Adam Schall n of Cologne. Sinte perhaps no one in his empire had previously received such instruction, he must indeed be held high in our esteem for his foresight and his grasp of affairs. He should be elevated above all other Chinese and Tartars, 1 2 exactly as if on a pyramid of Egypt a European steeple should be placed. [VIII] I remember the Reverend Father Claude Philip Grimaldi, 13 an eminent man of the same Society, telling me in Rome how much he admired the virtue and wisdom of this prince. Indeed (passing by, if I may, the comment on his love of justice, his charity to the populace, his moderate manner of living, and his other merits), Grimaldi asserted that the monarch's marvellous desire for knowledge almost amounted to a faith. For that ruler, whom eminent princes and the greatest men of the empire venerate from afar and revere when near, used to work with Verbiest in an inner suite for three or four hours daily with mathematical instruments and books as a pupil with his teacher. He profited so greatly that he learned the Euclidean theorems, and, having understood trigonometrical calculations, could demonstrate by numbers the phenomena of the stars. And indeed, as the Reverend Father Louis Le Comtes [sic], recently returned from there,14 informs us in a published account of China, the emperor prepared a book on geometry, 1 5 that he might furnish his sons with the elements 11. In China from 1622 until his death in 1666, Schall guided the Jesuit mission through the critical years of upheaval accompanying the downfall of the Ming dynasty. See Rowbotham, op. cit., pp. 71-92. 12. The use of the word "Tartar" in this sense means Manchus. 13. Leibniz visited Rome in 1689 where he stayed for six months. Leibniz' major interest in Chinese thought began with his Rome visit. See Fischer, op. cit., p. 200. 14. Apparently, he was recalled to Rome ca. 1695. He later became confessor to the Duchess of Burgundy. See Ting Tchao-tsing, Les descriptions de la Chine par les Francois (1650-1750) (Paris, 1928), p. 25. 15. In the English translation of Le Comte's Nouveaux mt moires (1696) the Jesuit author comments (p. 387): "The fathers Gerbillon and Bouvet supposed the Tartarian Tongue fManchu] would be better liked by this Prince [than Chinese], and that it might serve their turn better to make their Notions intelligible. It happened according to their Expectation, and the Emperor became in a short time so capable that he composed a Book of Geometry. He afterwards gave it to the Princes his Sons, and undertook to be their master in it; he call'd them together every day, explain'd to them the most difficult Propositions of Euclid; yea . . . and did not disdain, with his Rule and Compass in his Hand, to spend his Time in his Family in Speculation. . . ." The K'ang-hsi emperor's work was not published apparently until late in his 73

of so great a science and the knowledge of so many truths, and bequeath the wisdom which he had brought into his empire as an inheritance to his realm, having in view the happiness of his people even in posterity. For my part I do not see how more admirable resolutions could motivate any man. [IX] Now geometry ought not to be regarded as the sphere of workmen but of philosophers; for, since virtue flows from wisdom, and the spirit of wisdom is truth, those who thoroughly investigate the demonstrations of the geometers have perceived the nature of eternal truth, and are able to tell the certain from the uncertain. Other mortals waver amid guesses, and, not knowing the truth, almost ask with Pilate what it is. But there is no doubt that the monarch of the Chinese saw very plainly what in our part of the world Plato formerly taught, that no one can be educated in the mysteries of the sciences except through geometry. Nor do I think the Chinese, though they have cultivated learning with 'marvelous application for thousands of years, and with great rewards to their scholars, have failed to attain excellence in science simply because they are lacking one of the eyes of the Europeans, to wit, geometry. Although they may be convinced that we are one-eyed, we have still another eye, not yet well enough understood by them, namely, First Philosophy. Through it we are admitted to an understanding even of things incorporeal. Verbiest was prepared to teach them this, rightly judging that it would prepare an opening for the Christian religion, but death intervened. [ X ] And now I learn that by the authority of their king and through the zeal of Hedraeusi6 and Verjus,n great men of their order and nation, the Reverend Fathers Gerbilloni8 reign. It is included in the YU Ting Shu Li Ching Yiin ("Imperial Edited E s sential Collection of Mathematical W o r k s " ) . 16. A rendering in Greek of the name of Father Francois d ' A i x d e l a C h a i z e (1624-1709).?iea= la chaise = chair. See Tentzels Monatliche Unterredungen, VI (1694), 1009, and F. R. Merkel, G. W. von Leibniz und die China-Mission p. 45, n. 1. L a Chaize was confessor to Louis XIV after 1675, a correspondent of Leibniz and initiator of the French Jesuit mission to Peking. 17. Antoine V e r j u s (1632-1706) was a regular correspondent of Leibniz. He and his brother, the Count of Crécy (Louis V e r j u s ) , traveled widely in G e r many. In his capacity as secretary to La Chaize, V e r j u s received information regularly f r o m the Jesuit mission in Peking. 18. Jean-Francois Gerbillon (1654-1707) embarked with five other Jesuits and the f i r s t French ambassador to Siam on the " O i s e a u " in 1685. Five of the

74

and Bouvet, 19 French Jesuits, along with four others, who are mathematicians from the Académie des Sciences, have been sent to the Orient to teach the monarch, not only the mathematical arts, but also the essence of our philosophy. But if this process should be continued I fear that we may soon become inferior to the Chinese in all branches of knowledge. I do not say this because I grudge them new light; rather I rejoice. But it is desirable that they in turn teach us those things which are especially in our interest: the greatest use of practical philosophy and a more perfect manner of living, to say nothing now of their other arts. Certainly the condition of our affairs, slipping as we are into ever greater corruption, seems to me such that we need missionaries from the Chinese who might teach us the use and practice of natural religion, just as we have sent them teachers of revealed theology. And so I believe that if someone expert, not in the beauty of goddesses but in the excellence of peoples, were selected as judge, the golden apple would be awarded to the Chinese, unless we should win by virtue of one great but superhuman thing, namely, the divine gift of the Christian religion. [XI ] There are those in Europe who have been striving with most praiseworthy love for many years to introduce this great gift of Heaven into the Chinese Empire. Such efforts have been made chiefly by the Society of Jesus, whose virtue in this enterprise deserves praise even from those who consider themselves its enemies. I know that Antoine Arnauld,2o long my friend and certainly among those who lend distinction to our age, has attacked them with ardent zeal. He has upbraided several of their missionaries, but rather too vehemently in some ways, as I see it; for by the example of Paul they ought to be all

French Jesuits arrived in Peking in 1687, where they were received cordially by the K'ang-hsi emperor. The other Jesuits were sent to the provinces, but Gerbillon and Bouvet were invited to remain in Peking. See Rowbotham, op. cit., p. 106. 19. Joachim Bouvet (1656-1730) composed several works in Chinese on Western geometry. Cf. supra, p. 69, n. 3. 20. Antoine Arnauld (1612-1694), famous French lawyer and Jansenist, was a bitter critic of the Jesuits and their theological "modernism." At the center of the Jesuit-Jansenist controversy, he was forced to flee from France in 1678. Taking refuge in Brussels, he spent the remaining years of his life in controversy with Jesuits, Calvinists, and fellow philosophers. 75

things to all men,21 and the honors given to Confucius seem to have nothing of religious adoration in them.22 Moreover, Arnauld also attacks the Dutch and English in his Apologie,23 either imputing to all the bad faith of a few, or putting his trust in the tales of Tavernier. 2 4 who was provoked by his private grievances against the Dutch, though it is well known that many thousands of men, in both Indies, have been converted to the faith by them. Arnauld has often been pressed both by private advice and public authority to return f r o m this remote battle to the society of common praise and labor. Reflecting on such efforts and considering the piety and wisdom of the great princes, I am not without hope that peace will be restored to Europe. [ X I I ] Still the organization of the religious orders f u r nishes them an advantage in sacred missions, which the efforts of others cannot easily achieve. I could wish, however, that the matter might be managed so that a people whose conversion we intend should not know what we C h r i s tians disagree on among ourselves. F o r we all universally consent to those principles of the Christian faith which 21. Cf. 1st Cor. 9:22: " I am made all things to all men that I might by all means save s o m e . " 22. Leibniz, as repeatedly noted, shared the Jesuit view on the rites question. He always felt that the Confucian ceremonies were civil rather than religious in character. 23. On the basis of Tavernier's (see infra, n. 24 ) attack upon the Dutch in his Relation du Japon, et la cause de la persécution des chrétiens dans ses Isles in Voyages . . . , Vol. III (Paris, 1679), Arnauld accused the Dutch Protestants of antagonizing the Japanese against Catholicism. This attack appears in several works, particularly in those of 1692. Further comment in V. Pinot, La Chine et la formation de l'isprit philosophique enFrance, pp. 86-90. Though Leibniz was sceptical of both Tavernier's and Arnauld's assertions, it can hardly be doubted that the Dutch and English opposed by all possible means the Jesuit-Portuguese effort to control trade with Japan. On this point see e s pecially chap, vii of C. R. Boxer, The Christian Century in Japan, 1549-1650 (Berkeley, 1951). 24. Jean Baptiste Tavernier (1605-1689), famous French voyager, wrote detailed accounts of his travels in Asia. An expert on precious stones, T a vernier between 1638 and 1663 managed to enrich himself and to aid French Oriental trade by his travels. Suspicious of his activities, the Dutch in the Indies and Japan placed many obstacles in his way, and, as a result were treated roughly in his accounts of their activities. His commercially-oriented Vierzig-Jährige Reise-Beschreibung . . . (Nürnberg, 1681), made a profound impression upon the Electoral Court at Berlin. In 1685 he became one of the first Directors of the abortive Brandenburg East India Company, and helped to formulate the Great E l e c t o r ' s plans for voyages to the F a r East. F o r further details see Schuck, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 225-227. 76

would insure the salvation of any people who would e m brace them, so long as nothing heretical, spurious, or false were daubed on besides. Missions should be undertaken carefully after the manner of the old church: neither should all mysteries be heaped indiscriminately upon unprepared souls; nor should Christian truth be subverted in application, however pleasing this might be to a people, as Louis de Dieu has complained was done in the gospels composed f o r the Persians.25 Rome, as I know, has occasionally called f o r abrupt halts as the result of uneasiness about unorthodox arrangements. On the other hand, some persons, ignorant and unskilled in human affairs, have wished, though more learned and prudent men protested, to f o r c e on f a r - o f f Christians all the formulas of the West, an e r r o r which certainly was responsible for the ruin of the Church f o r m e r l y flourishing in Abyssinia.26 [XIII ] It is to be hoped that in the future the work will be done more cautiously, as Christian prudence dictates, so as to use properly the great opportunity divinely presented when the monarch of China sanctioned the Christian faith by public law, of which event the present tract gives the history. Until now the Christian observances have been tolerated rather than permitted. Nor has the favor of the Chinese and Tartar princes or the merit of our people previously produced anything better than a mere connivance in suspending the execution of the strictly kept laws against impious sects, among which our religion was numbered. But the emperor consulted the " w i l l of heaven, "27 and (as Verbiest has elegantly said in a work of his published in Chinese and in Latin28Urania [Heaven in Greek 25. Louis de Dieu (1570-1642). celebrated orientalist and theologian of the University of Leyden. published in 1639 the work to which Leibniz r e f e r s under the title: Historia Christi et S. Petri persice conscripta ab. Hieron. Xavier cum latine versione et animadversionibus. 26. This is a reference to the Catholic attempt of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to bring the Abyssinian Church under the jurisdiction of Rome, an effort which resulted in lengthy civil w a r and the banishment of the E u r o pean missionaries in 1632. Cf. H. M. Hyatt. The Church of Abyssinia (London 1928), pp. 35-41. 27. The Latin term used here, materialis coeli, r e f e r s to the material heavens as contrasted with the spiritual heaven of the Christian faith. I have rendered this term " w i l l of heaven" as being a more faithful representation of the Chinese concept. 28. Presumably a reference to the work published in Europe under Coupl e t ' s supervision. See supra, p. 3,n. 6.

77

mythology] deigned to move the kingly mind so that our holy and truly celestial doctrine might be permitted. Then the strength of our geometry, as soon as it was tasted by the king, was so much to his liking that he easily came to believe that those who had learned thus to reason might teach correctly in other things. [XIV] Ricci had first shown to the Chinese at the beginning of the century what Europeans could do.29 Schall under the Chinese monarch and his Tartar successor publicly triumphed over the astronomy of the Chinese. While the present prince was as yet a minor, Verbiest with great acumen restored Christian affairs, previously upset by hostile passions. Then having obtained the friendship of the king when young, Verbiest discovered his resoluteness as a man. Missionaries were summoned to take advantage quickly of the good will of a prince intrigued by the pleasures of the sciences. For a while quarrels impeded the work. The outcome of these was that the Portuguese, through the apostolic vicars [Vicariis Pontificis], won the right of naming the Chinese bishops.30 But a further battle ensued between the bishops of Heliopolis [Baalbek] 31 and

29. Matteo Ricci (1551-1610) arrived in Macao in 1582. After twenty years of perseverance, he penetrated to the Ming capital at Peking. There, after numerous difficulties, he established the Jesuit mission shortly before his death. See Pfister. op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 22-43. 30. According to two papal bulls of 1514. Portugal was granted the right of patronage f o r ecclesiastical benefices and o f f i c e s in A f r i c a and in all other places acquired or to be acquired f r o m the infidels. After a bitter contest, Spain agreed in 1529 that China should come within Portugal's jurisdiction. Five years later the Portuguese founded the diocese of Goa which included the territories f r o m the Cape of Good Hope to India and China. In 1557 the P o r tuguese through bribery began to take over Macao. The predominance of Macao as a Portuguese commercial and Jesuit mission outpost was challenged by Spanish merchants and Augustinian missionaries f r o m the Philippines. The dispatch of French Jesuits to China in 1685 was interpreted by the Portuguese as a challenge to their control over Catholic missions in China. In 1690, Pope Alexander VIII, to satisfy the Portuguese, created the dioceses of Peking and Nanking under the Archbishop of Goa. Vic&rs apostolic, interim bishops, appointed by the Congregation of Propaganda in Rome, were also dispatched to China, instructed to end the missionary quarrels, and to organize the hierarchy in China under their direct supervision. Such a decision in Rome constituted a victory f o r Portugal. See the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. III. p. 672, and A. S. Rosso, Apostolic Legations to China of the Eighteenth Century (South Pasadena, Cal., 1948), pp. 125-126. 31. Francois Pallu, named Bishop of Heliopolis by Pope Innocent XI, was sent to China as apostolic vicar and chief spiritual administrator of the Church in China. Shortly after his arrival in China, he died in Fukien province in 1684.

78

Beirut,32 sent to the Orient with wide powers from the Pope, and the missionaries of the religious orders with their privileges and primacy of possession, variously supported. At length the authority [constancy, in the 1697 edition] of the Pope triumphed.33 When things had finally been settled, Verbiest lacked nothing. And since he was esteemed above all others in the prince's mind, he persuaded the ruler that there are in fact in the doctrines of the Europeans many things to be treasured. Such an interest in foreign learning had not been shown in China since the emissary sent to the West in ancient times brought back the accursed idol Foe from the foremost island of the Indies.34 As a result Grimaldi, of whom I have spoken, was sent to Europe to bring back men skilled in various arts. The memory of Verbiest's work remained so vivid in the Emperor's mind that in the interval between his death and Grimaldi's return his achievements were reviewed along with those of the great European doctors in the petition presented to entreat for liberty of religion. [ X V ] Then soon, after the five French Jesuits instructed in the mathematical sciences were invited from the kingdom of Siam,35and even as the Portuguese were penetrating into China, we were presented with a new opportunity to oblige the Emperor. The Muscovites, having with prudent moderation lured the barbarian nations one by one under their yoke into a vastly extended empire, became neighbors to the Chinese Tartars. Eventually controversies arose over boundaries. The situation was dealt with sometimes by arms, sometimes by negotiations. Finally ambassadors of both peoples met in the city of Nipchou in

32. Evidently B e r n a r d i n o Delia Chiesa. a F r a n c i s c a n apostolic v i c a r who accompanied P a l l u on the t r i p to China. On P a l l u ' s death a c o n f l i c t d e v e l o p e d o v e r the s u c c e s s i o n to his o f f i c e between D e l i a Chiesa and C h a r l e s M a i g r o t . P a l l u ' s s e c o n d - i n - c o m m a n d . See R o s s o , op. cit., p. 126. 33. F o r the d e t a i l s of the c o n f l i c t between M a i g r o t and his opponents, and f o r the d e c i s i o n s of P o p e Innocent XII. s e e ibid., pp. 130-136. 34. " F o " is the Chinese w o r d f o r Buddha or Buddhism. The Jesuits w r i t ing at this p e r i o d on Chinese subjects usually r e f e r r e d to it as the " d o c t r i n e of F o . " The e m i s s a r y mentioned h e r e is probably F a - h s i e n who journeyed to India, Ceylon, and Java f r o m 399 to 411 A . D. to study Buddhism and its s a c r e d texts. He returned to China with numerous texts and r e l i c s . The account of his t r a v e l s p a r t i c u l a r l y intrigued the Jesuit m i s s i o n a r i e s and their s u p p o r t e r s in Europe. 35. See supra,pp.74-75,n.

18.

79

the realm of the Muscovites, closely attended by sizable contingents.36 The Chinese took with them Father Pereira,37 the Portuguese, and Father Gerbillon,38 the French Jesuit, through whose mediation a final touch was put upon the business with fortunate results: a firm peace was concluded and the ambassadors themselves avowed publicly that, in the midst of such a divergence of customs and points of view, and on a matter affecting the jealous rivalry of two hypersensitive nations, they would have been hopelessly divided had these priests not been present.39 Thereafter, the Emperor most wisely used this success to commend the European doctors to his magistrates. [XVI] A copy was made for me of the letters which Gerbillon wrote from the place of negotiations to Hedraeus and Verjus and entrusted to the care of the Muscovites.40 From these I have selected some memorable passages and placed them in the text. In addition, a brief account of the wanderings or rather journey of the latest Muscovite embassy since the peace is here attached. We expect, too, a full and fitting account from Adam Brand 41 of LUbeck, who has been dispatched home. I am adding also extracts from Verbiest's book of astronomy, printed in Chinese as well as in the Latin which I have seen; and the short letter of Reverend Father Grimaldi, chief of the mathematics faculty, dated from Goa on December 6, 1693, while en route with his colleagues to China, which already gives me hope of excellent communications to Europe; and lastly, extracts from those letters of Reverend Father Thomas,42 the Bel36. Consult account of the Nerchinsk negotiations, supra, pp. 14-15. 37. Thomas P e r e i r a (1645-1708) arrived in Peking in 1673 and soon bec a m e attached to the court of the K'ang-hsi emperor. When Grimaldi left for Europe in 1686, P e r e i r a and Father Antoine Thomas jointly assumed his position at the Manchu-Chinese court. 38. See supra,pp.74-75.n. 18. 39. See supra, p. 14. 40. See supra, pp. 15-16. 41. As s e c r e t a r y of the e m b a s s y sent by Peter the Great to Peking from 1693 to 1695 with Everard Isbrand as Ambassador. Adam Brand published in 1698 at Hamburg entitled in its English translation of the s a m e year: A Journal of the Embassy from . . . the Emperors of Muscovy, etc. Over Land into China (London). 42. Antoine Thomas (1644-1709) was in the Far East from 1681 until his death. Arriving in Peking in 1685. he was welcomed by Verbiest and Grimaldi. and invited by the K'ang-hsi emperor to remain at the imperial court. His major works were devoted to mathematics, astronomy, and religion. See Pfister. op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 403-410. 80

gian, vice-president of the mathematics faculty, informing us of the remarkable progress in Christianizing. I hope with this book to be able to rouse European courts and churches, so they may send laborers to the waiting harvest. [XVII] From information received it may be gathered that Grimaldi, whom WQ understood to have fallen into danger on his way to Peking,43 is now safe again, to the great good of the common enterprise. When he left Rome, after sending ahead the greater number of the missionaries in Portuguese ships, he had determined to go by land through Muscovy. For this journey of salvation he was provided with letters from and the seal of the Imp'erial [Chinese] Board of War,44 and from our great Emperor45and the king of Poland.46 But neither the importance of his business nor the recommendation of so many kings was enough to gain him admittance from the Muscovites. This is the same fate which the Reverend Father Aprilis,47 whose journeys are well known, suffered shortly before. [XVIII] Grimaldi had received promises from me of the Key to Chinese (Clavis Sinica) by Andreas M u l l e r 4 8 of Pomerania, a man most learned in Oriental matters. He traveled through Silesia seeking in vain to meet this man. Though he had few hopes of success, he believed that no stone should be left unturned in so important a matter. But peevishness contended with learning in Miiller, and so I, Grimaldi, Ludolph,49 and the Great E l e c t o r 5 0 himself (now 43. Leibniz evidently learned this through Kochanski. though no precise reference can be located (see supra, pp. 30-32). Pfister, op. cit., Vol. I. p. 374 holds that Grimaldi on his return to Peking in 1694 was warmly received by the emperor. 44. I have freely translated "Tribunalis Regii rerum militarium" as Imperial Board of War. The Shih-lu: K'ang-hsi, ch'uan 127, p. 10. confirms Leibniz' statement that Grimaldi's letter bore the seal of the Imperial Board of War. For details s e e Fu Lo-shu. op. cit., pp. 120-121; 195. 45. Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor (1658-1705). 46. John III Sobieski (1674-1696). 47. See supra, pp. 11-12. 48. For details s e e Lach, "The Chinese Studies of Andreas Müller," loc. cit., pp. 564-575. 49. Hiob L. Ludolf (1624-1704) a student of Golius. was one of the greatest Orientalists of his day. He was primarily interested in Ethiopic and Near Eastern languages, but like a number of contemporary students of language he possessed a lively interest in the Chinese language and its possible relation to other Asiatic and African tongues. He was also a student of Russian and Asiatic "curiosities." 50. See supra, pp. 45-46. 81

deceased, who gave Berlin its ascendancy) strove in vain. Perhaps M'uller esteemed his invention excessively or doubted that it should be brought to light while not sufficiently perfected. In the main I believe he was concerned over its imperfections. And the temperament of the man was so peculiar that he carried out the threats he had made. He is said to have burned his papers a little while before his death. By this strange action he hoped to take from us knowledge of whichever it was, his understanding or his ignorance. I judge that, as something worthy had already been accomplished, we might have hoped for more. This he could have produced if he had been helped enough. If only he had explained the whole affair frankly to those who could have understood it, he would without doubt have received the desired aid of great princes and especially of his lord. In the meantime, however this may have been (and I do not judge his reluctance to have been entirely groundless),si he died obstinate, though otherwise good and deserving the commendation of Christian interests and missions. [XIX] Now Grimaldi (I return to him), having found Muscovy closed to him, retraced his route to Genoa. From there he sailed to Marseilles and thence to Smyrna. He arrived in Persian territory, where, and even beyond, my letters followed.52 in addition to the recommendations of Grimaldi prepared for the Persian king, the Most Serene King of Poland had ordered and attached recommendations for the Reverend Fathers Vota53and Kochanski. However, Grimaldi had already left and the letters only reached him at Ispahan. He had hoped to go from Persia through the lands of the Usbek Tartars and Bokhara onward to China. In this he was deterred by the bandit-infested roads of that savage land, and held to the more frequented way of Goa, the Indies, and the port of Macao. And to the great joy of the prince he was received with the highest honor in the Chinese Empire. 51. Leibniz corresponded with M'uller at length as he sought to find out as much as possible about the Key to Chinese. His questions, however, appear not to have r e c e i v e d s a t i s f a c t o r y answers. 52. Cf. supra, p. 29. 53. Charles Maurice Vota ( 1 6 2 9 - 1 7 1 5 ) , onetime D i r e c t o r of the Academy of Geography at Turin and Pope Innocent X I ' s e m i s s a r y to Vienna and W a r s a w , was head of the Jesuit house in Moscow from 1684 to 1689. See supra, p.10.

82

[ X X ] Now Christian affairs are said to be greatly prospering with hopes high for further progress; especially if what Reverend Father Adam Kochanski (an able humanist, learned in affairs and especially in knowledge of mathematics, and a brilliant even in the star-studded company of the Jesuit order) wrote to me is true, namely, that the heir to the empire had acquired some knowledge of European l a n g u a g e s . 5 4 Already additional missionaries are being sent from France. I hope that Germany also will not fail in its duty both to itself and to Christ. In letters written to Vienna I have expressed the wish, through the Reverend Father Menegatti, 55 the imperial confessor whose eminent learning equals [corresponds to, in the 1697 edition] his authority, that the Emperor in his deep piety and wisdom may exert pressure upon the Muscovites to grant the heralds of the Gospel f r e e access to C h i n a . 5 6 if this enterprise appeals to the hearts of those who can aid it, as I think may be anticipated, we may accomplish our end by making proper use of divine aid and favorable circumstances. [XXI ] In earlier times the Chinese had already learned something of Christ. It is clear that silk was known by name to the Romans and Greeks. In the days of the great Justinian weavers brought silkworms into the Roman Empire. At the same time, particularly the monk Cosmas I n d i c o p l e u s t e s 5 7 was writing informatively about distant peoples. From these writings H o l s t e n i u s 5 8 has published an excerpt, the inscription of Adulis in interior A f r i c a . 5 9 54. Adam A. Kochanski (1631-1700), court mathematician to Jean Sobieski, the king of Poland, engaged in correspondence with Leibniz from 1670 to 1698. See supra, pp. 30-31. 55. Francis Menegatti (1631-1700), professor of theology and philosophy at the University of Vienna, was confessor to the Emperor Leopold I. On his visit to Vienna in 1688-1689, Leibniz sought Menegatti out even before he b e came the imperial confessor. 56. See supra, p. 18. 57. Born in Alexandria, probably of Greek descent, Cosmas wrote an a c count of his travels in the early sixth century entitled Universal Christian Topography (ca. 547). He landed at Adulis where he copied the Greek inscriptions. 58. Lukas Holste (1596-1661), appointed librarian of the Vatican by Pope Innocent X. Leibniz r e f e r s to his work posthumously published in 1662. entitled Collectio Romana bipartita velerum aliquot Historiae ecclesiasticae Monumentorum (Rome). 59. Adulis, a city on the Red Sea, which yielded up to investigators the Monumentum Adulitanum. The Greek inscription on this monument told of the conquests of Ptolemy II Eurgetes in 245 B. C.

83

This same Cosmas did what no one had done before by setting down the true name for the silk lands. For he called them Tzin, a pronunciation that is much more nearly correct than our vulgar one, when we refer to them as Sinas or China, or even Tschina as I have expressed it above in the Portuguese manner.60 Moreover, we know that Christians from Syria penetrated to China and founded a Church there. The testimony for this is inscribed on a monument discovered in our century in China.ei Athanasius Kircher has published the inscription62and Andreas MUller has commented on it. 63 When this discovery was received dubiously by scholars, Melchisedech Th§venot, royal librarian of France, while working with great erudition and distinguished judgment primarily on a question of geography, found in the writings of the Mahometans support for its authenticity. This I am afraid may be forgotten with the death of the man.64 As a result of further investigation I learned that Herbelot,65 the Frenchman most informed on Oriental subjects, who is now dead, translated a certain account (in Arabic or Persian) for the Grand Duke of Tus60. In modern Portuguese the word is rendered "China." 61. The monument discovered at Sian in 1625 by the Jesuits recounted in parallel Syriac and Chinese inscriptions the story of the introduction of Nestorian Christianity to China in the seventh century. Among European scholars a controversy raged for about two centuries after its discovery as to the monument's authenticity. For a detailed account of the history and controversy of the Nestorian monument consult Henri Havret, La stèle chrétienne de Si-ngan-fou (Shanghai, 1895). 62. China monumentis qua sacris qua profanis, nec non variis naturae et artis spectaculis aliarumque rerum memorabilium argumentis illustrata (Antwerp, 1667). 63. This commentary is entitled Monumenti Sinici . . . (1672) and is published as the second part of Miiller's Opuscula nonnulla Orientalia, um volumine comprehensa, quorum sequeuti pagina prolixius monstrabat (Frankfurt-onthe-Oder, 1695). 64. Thêvenot (1620-1692) collected numerous manuscripts and published two volumes in four parts entitled Relations de divers voyages curieux . . . (Paris. 1663-1672). These were reprinted in 1696, but his fifth section has not so far been published. Since no manuscripts of this kind appear in the published portion of Thévenot's collection, Leibniz may have been r e f e r r i n g to the unpublished fifth section. 65. Barthélémy d'Herbelot de Molainville (1625-1695) was a close student of Oriental languages; he worked particularly in the collections at P a r i s and Florence. His Bibliothèque orientale . . . (Paris, 1697) contains r e f e r e n c e s to the antiquity of Christianity in China extracted f r o m Near Eastern sources under the headings "Kerit" and "Nesturios." In 1780 Father C. Visdelou issued a supplement to the Bibliothèque orientale dealing with the Far East. 84

cany.66 It concerns a journey through the Usbek lands to Cathay or China, and is said to contain proof of the antiquity of Christianity in China.67 I have advised the eminent Antonio Magliabecchi,68 frequently mentioned in the writings of myself and others, to publish this work since it concerns Christian affairs. Whatever he may rescue from oblivion will doubtless find favor with the Grand Duke, whose piety equals his wisdom. [ X X I I ] Since the death of Andreas Müller, the study of sinology is being continued here in Germany at Berlin by Christian Mentzel,69 royal physician to the most Serene and Potent Elector. His efforts are inspired by the favor and encouragement of the most wise Elector, who bows to no one in his ardent zeal for the propagation of true piety and belief. Furthermore, when I received the account by the rector of the College at Peking [Joseph Suarez], which was sent from Peking by the Reverend Father de Amarat [sz'c/]70 of Portugal with a recommendation to Herr von Cochenheim,71 the adviser of the most reverent Bishop of Münster [the 1697 edition reads: when Reverend Father Clersius?2 sent me from Münster in Westphalia that account which I now publish from the rector of the College at Peking to Reverend Father de Amarat, recommended to Herr von Cochenheim, adviser to the most reverend bishop], I thought it concerned Christian affairs to possess an accurate picture of divine beneficence so opportunely grant-

66. Cosimo III (1670-1723). 67. I have no knowledge of the manuscript to which Leibniz r e f e r s . G. S. Bayer in the P r e f a c e (pp. 81-83) of his Museum Sinicum . . . (St. Petersburg, 1730), also pleads ignorance of its whereabouts and its contents. 68. Patronized by Cosimo III, Magliabecchi (1633-1714) was custodian and organizer of the Biblioteca Palatina which was united in 1747 with the B i b l i o teca Nazionale di Firenze. 69. See supra, pp. 46-49. 70. Almost certainly means Father Michel do A m a r a l (1656-1730) who r e turned f r o m China to Europe in 1694. See Pfister, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 462-463. 71. Ernst Cochenheim (sometimes Kochenheim), councillor f r o m 1694 to 1699 to Frederick Christian von Plettenberg, prince-bishop of Münster. The Relationen Cochenkeims are p r e s e r v e d in the state archives of Münster. See Friedrich Scharlach, "Fürstbischof Friedrich Christian v. Plettenberg und die münsterische Politik im Koalitionskriege, 1688-97," Westßlische Zeitschrift, XCIII (1937), 105. 72. Johannes Clerf wrote to Leibniz on June 25, 1696, requesting that in a new edition of the Novissima Sinica his name should not be mentioned. See Merkel, op. cit., p. 53, n. 2, and supra, p. 58.

85

ed.? 3 I have therefore included this narrative to amplify the matters touched upon by tjie Reverend Louis Le Comtes [ s i c / ] in his French narration of Chinese affairs. Nor do I think I have acted unwisely in adding a preface to materials relating to the prosecution of this greatest of enterprises, about which European piety is more and more inflamed. Certainly the size of the Chinese Empire is so great, the reputation of this wisest nation in the Orient so impressive, and its authority so influential an example to the rest, that scarcely since apostolic times has any greater work appeared for the Christian faith to accomplish. [XXIII] May God provide that our joys be solid and lasting, undisturbed by imprudent zeal, by internecine conflicts among the men traveling on apostolic duties, or by our own unworthy example.

73. A r e f e r e n c e to the K ' a n g - h s i edict of toleration (see supra,

86

p. 25).

the text of 1699 [ I ] Singulari quodam fatorum Consilio factum arbitror, ut maximus generis humani cultus ornatusq; hodie velut collectus sit in duobus extremis nostri continentis, Europa et Tschina, (sic enim efferunt) quae velut Orientalis quaedam Europa oppositum terrae marginem ornat. Forte id agitat Suprema Providentia, ut dum politissimae gentes eaedemque remotissimae sibi brachia porrigunt, paulatim quicquid intermedium est, ad meliorem vitae rationem traducatur. Nec temere fieri arbitror, quod Mosci, qui vastissima ditione Sinas Europae connectunt, & intimam septentrionis barbariem per glacialis Oceani littora imperio continent, Monarcha ipso, qui nunc rerum potitur, potissimum anuitente, & Patriarcha etiam, ut accepi, consiliis astimulante, ad quandam rerum nostrarum aemulationem eriguntur. [II] Porro Sinense Imperium, ut magnitudine Europam qua exculta est provocat, & populositate etiam superai, ita multa alia habet, quibus nobis certet, aequo propemodum Marte, & nunc vincat, nunc vincatur. Sed ut rem in summam conferam, nam per omnia ire, etsi utilis, longae tamen & non hujus loci operae foret; artibus quarum indiget usus vitae, & rerum naturalium experimentis, fortasse compensatione facta pares sumus, habetque utraque pars, quae alteri cum fructu communicare possit: sed meditationum profunditate & theoreticis disciplinis nos vincimus. Nam praeter Logicam & Metaphysicam, & cognitionem rerum incorporearum, quas nobis proprias merito vindicamus; certe contemplatione formarum quae mente à materia abstrahuntur, id est rerum mathematicarum, longe excellimus, quemadmodum reapse compertum est, quando Astronomia Sinensium cum nostra in certamen vènit. Videntur enim ignorasse magnum illud mentis lumen, artem demonstrandi, & Geometria quadam 87

Empirica contenti fuisse, qualem inter nos passim operarii habent. Disciplina etiam militari nostris cedunt, non tam ignoratione quam Consilio quodam suo, dum aspernantur, quicquid in hominibus feritatem quandam facit aut alit, & propemodum aemulatione altioris doctrinae Christi, quam nonnulli male perceptam ad scrupulositatem producunt, bella aversantur. Sapienter illi quidem si soli in orbi essent: nunc eo resredit,* ut etiam bonos necesse sit artes nocendi colere, ne omnem rerum potestatem mali ad se trahant. His ergo nos superiores sumus. [Ili] Sed quis olim credidisset, esse gentem in orbe terrarum quae nos opinione nostra ad omnem morum elegantiam usque adeo eruditos, tamen vincat civilioris vitae praescriptis ? & hoc tamen in Sinensibus nunc experimur, ex quo illa gens nobis notior facta est. Itaque si artibus operatricibus pares sumus, si scientiis contemplativis vicimus, certe practica philosophia (quod propemodum fateri pudet) vieti sumus, id est Ethicae & Politicae praeceptis, ad ipsam vitam usumque mortalium accommodatis. Dici enim non potest, quam pulchre omnia ad tranquillitatem publicam, ordinemque hominum inter se, ut quam minimum sibi ipsi incommodent, supra aliarum gentium leges apud Sinenses sint ordinata. Certum est maxima mala hominibus à se ipsis, & à se invicem oriri, & hominem homini lupum esse nimis vere dictum est, magna quidem nostra sed catholica admodum stultitia, qui tot naturae injuriis expositi miserias nobis ipsi cumulamus, quasi aliunde deessent. [IV] Cui malo si quod ratio remedium uteunque attulit, certe Sinenses prae caeteris ad meliorem normam accessere, & in vasta hominum societate plus pene effecere, quam in sua familia apud nos religiosorum ordinum fundatores. Tanta est obedientia erga superiores, tanta erga seniores reverentia, tam religiosus propemodum liberorum in parentes cultus, ut violentum aliquid vel verbo in eos parare, inauditum propemodum illis, & pene, ut parricidium inter nos, facinus piaculare videatur. Porro inter pares aut minus invicem obligatos mirabilis observantia & praescripta officiorum ratio, quae nobis, scilicet ratione & regula agere parum assuetis, servitutis aliquid habere videtur, illis usu in naturam versa, jucunde obitur. Rustici & servi Sinenses, quod nostris cum stupore observatum, cum valedicendum * Written as two words in the edition of 1697.

88

est amicis, aut cum à diuturna absentia mutuo conspectu fruuntur, ita amanter, ita reverenter inter se agunt, ut omnem magnatum Europaeorum provocent civilitatem. Quid jam à Mandarinis, quid à Colais expectes? Ita obtinuere, ut vix quisquam alterum vel verbulo offendat in communi conversatione, & rara odii, irae, commotionis indicia excidant. Et cum apud nos reverentia quaedam & dispensata conversatio vix ac ne vix quidem primis novae notitiae diebus duret, mox autem familiaritate procedente circumspectio exuatur, jucundae quidem libertatis specie, sed unde mox contemtus, & mordacia dicta, & irae, postremoque inimicitiae: contra Sinensibus vicini etiam, imo domestici, sepimento quodam consuetudinum ita continentur, ut perpetuae officiositatis species conservetur. [ V ] Et licet nec avaritia, nec libidine, nec ambitione vacent; ut hactenus de illis verum sit quod de Lunaribus populis apud Harlequinum Imperatorem Lunae in theatro saepe repetebatur, perinde ibi omnia ut hie agi; (C'est tout cornine icy) veramque adeo virtutem satis assecuti non sint Sinenses, quam nisi à coelesti gratia & Christiana disciplina non expectes: vitiorum tamen acerbos fructus temperavere; & cum radices peccatorum de humana natura exstirpare non possent, propullulantes tamen fructices malorum pro bona parte succidi posse ostenderunt. [ V I ] Quis vero non miretur Monarcham tanti Imperii, qui pene humanum fastigium magnitudine excessit, & mortalis quidam Deus habetur, ut ad nutus ejus omnia agantur, ita tamen educari solere ad virtutem & sapientiam, ut legum observantia incredibili, & sapientum hominum reverentia vincere subditos, ipso culmine suo dignum judicare videatur. Nec facile quicquam occurrat memoratu dignius, quam videre maximum Regum, qui nunc omnia potest, posteritatem tam religiosè vereri, & annalium metu magis quam alii Comitiis ordinum & Parlamentis coerceri; magnaque circumspectione vitare, ne quid ii quibus historiae sui regni materiam praeparare datum, in clausas illas atque inviolabiles arculas immittere possint, quo sua existimatio aliquando maculetur. [ V I I ] Usq; adeo ut qui nunc regnat Cam-Hi, Princeps pene sine exemplo egregius, uteunque in Europaeos propensus, libertatem tamen Religionis Christianae lege publica indulgere, tribunalibus dissuadentibus ausus non sit, donee sanctitas ejus explorata fuit, & constitit non alia melius ratione magnum Principis 89

& salutare consilium ad exitum perduci posse, de introducendis apud Sinas artibus scientiisque Europaeis. Qua ille in re mihi longius unus quam omnia sua tribunalia prospexisse videtur: tantaeque prudentiae causam hanc esse existimo, quod Sinensibus Europaea conjunxit. Nam in omni Sinensium disciplina pene ultra privati hominis diligentiam jam tum instructus fuit à pueritia, ut in Mandarinorum examinibus, quibus honores & magistratus deferuntur, judex habeatur acerrimus, & (quae apud ipsos doctrina summa est) animi sensa mirifice ipse exponat characteribus, in tantum ut conscriptum à doctissimis hominibus Christianorum libellum supplicem ipse potuerit in melius reformare. Itaque suae primum gentis doctrinam accurate intelligens, nec jam iniquus judex, ubi à patre Ferdinando Verbiestio Brugensi Belga, ex Societate Jesu, Joh. Adami Schalli Coloniensis discipulo, Europaearum scientiarum gustum accepit, quem fortasse in ilio Imperio hactenus habuit nemo, non potuit non supra omnes Sinas & Tartaros rerum cognitione prospectuque extolli, quemadmodum si pyramidi AEgyptiae turris Europaea imponeretur. [ V i l i ] Memini R. Patrem Claudium Philippum Grimaldum ex eadem Societate insignem Virum, Romae mihi non sine admiratione hujus Principis virtutem & sapientiam praedicasse; nam ut de amore justitiae, de caritate erga populos, de moderata vivendi ratione, caeterisque laudibus nil dicam; mirificam sciendi cupiditatem pene fidem superare ajebat. Nam is quem cognati Principes, & maximiViri totius Imperii eminus venerantur & prope adorant, cum Verbiestio in interiore conclavi per tres quatuorve horas quotidie Mathematicis instrumentis librisque operam dabat, ut discipulus cum Magistro; tantumque profecit, ut demonstrationes Euclideas perceperit, & trigono^ metricis calculis intellectis, Astrorum phaenomena numeris vincere possit. Quin & quod R. P. Ludovicus de Comitibus nuper inde redux relatione de Sinis edita nos docuit, librum ipse de Geometria confecit, ut tantae scientiae eiementis et magnarum veritatum notitia liberos ipse suos imbuat, Sapientiamque, quam suo Imperio intulit, in sua domo haereditariam reddat felicitati populorum etiam ultra vitam suam prospiciens: quibus consiliis, quae agitari in humanis praeclariora possint, non video. [IX] Geometriam autem non operarii sed Philosophi ritu intueri oportet; & cum virtus fluat ex sapientia, sapientiae autem anima sit 90

Veritas, ii autem demum quibus exploratae sunt Geometrarum demonstrationes, aeternarum veritatum indolem perspectam habeant, & certum incerto discernere possint; caeteris mortalibus inter conjecturas vacillantibus, & propemodum quod Pilatus quaerebat, quid sit Veritas nescientibus; ideo non dubium est, Sinensium Monarcham praeclarè vidisse, quod in nostra orbis parte Plato olim inculcabat, neminem imbui posse scientiarum mysteriit* nisi per Geometriam. Nec alia re factum puto quod Sinenses, etsi ab aliquot annorum millibus miro studio doctrinam colentes, & maxima doctis praemia proponentes, tamen ad exquisitam scientiam non pervenere, quam quòd uno ilio Europaeorum oculo, Geometria scilicet caruere. Tametsi autem illi nos monoculos crediderint, habemus tamen alium adhuc oculum, nondum satis ipsis cognitum, primam scilicet Philosophiam, per quam ad rerum incorporalium etiam notitiam admisi sumus. Hanc docere jam paraverat Verbiestius, quod ita Christianae religioni viam magis parari recte judicaret, sed morte praeventus fuit. [ X ] Nunc accepi RR. PP. Gerbillonium & Bouvetum Jesuitas Gallos auspiciis Regiis, magnorumque e jus ordinis gentisque virorum Hedraei et Verjusii studio, cum quatuor aliis, Mathematicorum titulo ex Academia Scientiarum in Orienterai missos, praeter Mathematicas artes, etiam Philosophiae nostrae doctrina Monarcham sibi devinxisse. Quod si ita pergitur, vereor ne mox omni laude Sinensibus inferiores simus: quae non ideo dico quod illis lucem novam invideam, cum gratuler potius; sed quod optandum sit vicissim nos discere, quae magis adhuc in rem nostram essent, usum maxime Philosophiae practicae, & emendatiorem vivendi rationem, ut de aliis eorum artibus nunc nil dicam. Certe talis nostrarum rerum mihi videtur esse conditio, gliscentibus in immensum corruptelis, ut propemodum necessarium videatur Missionaries Sinensium ad nos mitti, qui Theologiae naturalis usum praxinque nos doceant, quemadmodum nos illis mittimus qui Theologiam eos doceant revelatam. Itaque credo, si quis sapiens, non formae Dearum, sed excellentiae populorum judex lectus esset, pomum aureum Sinensibus daturum esse, nisi una maxime sed supra-humana re eos vinceremus, divino scilicet munere Christianae religionis. * M y s t e r i i s in edition of 1697.

A misprint.

91

[XI ] Hoc tantum coeli beneficium laudatissima caritate à compluribus annis Sinensi Imperio inferre student, cum alii in Europa, tum maxime Societas Jesu, cujus, etiam eos qui hostem sibi judicant, laudare in ea re virtutem oportet. Scio Antonium Arnaldum Virum inter nostri seculi ornamenta referendum & mihi olim amicum, concitato contra illos zelo, exprobrasse quaedam eorum Missionariis, sed ut arbitror in nonnullis justo vehementiùs, nam Pauli exemplo omnibus omnia fieri oportet, & Confutii honores religiosae adorationis nihil habere videntur. Idemque Arnaldus etiam cum Batavis Anglisque sua Apologia egit iniquius, vel paucorum desidiam omnibus imputans, vel Tavernerii privata qvadam in Batavos injuria irritati dicteriis fidem habens, cum multa hominum millia in utrisque Indiis ab illis ad fidem confersa constet, & saepe privatis consiliis, publicaque auctoritate actum sit, ut in societatem laudis laborisque communis, seposita interim contentione veniretur. De quo, magnorum Principum pietatem & sapientiam intuens, reddita Europae pace non despero. [XII] Tametsi religiosorum ordinum institutum eam missionibus sacris commoditatem praebeat, quam aliorum conatus non facile assequuntur. Rem autem ita agi velim, ut ne intelligant quidem populi, quorum salutem meditamur, quibus Christiani inter nos dissideamus, cum omnes catholice consentiamus in ea Christianae fidei praecepta, quae si illae amplecterentur gentes, de salute earum nemo dubitaret; dummodo nihil haereticum & subdititium et omnino dubitatione gravi libatum affricaretur. Qua in re ita prudenter agi oportet Ecclesiae veteris exemplo, ut neque omnia mysteria inconsulte ingerantur animis non praeparatis, neque tamen studio placendi gentibus Christiana veritas detrimentum patiatur, ut in Evangelio quodam Persice composito factum esse questus est Ludovicus de Dieu. Et cum intelligam Romam ipsam interdum moram progressibus injecisse visam scrupulositate quadam ex relationibus sinistris orta; & nonnullos male consultos rerumque humanarum imperitos, reclamantibus doctioribus, longinquos- Christianos ad omnes occidentalium formulas adigere voluisse, qui sane error ipsis haud dubiè florentis jam apud Abassinos Ecclesiae interitu stetit: [ X m ] sperandum est in posterum ex Christianae prudentiae praescripto cautius acturos & daturos operam, ut magna illa occasione divinitus data recte utantur, ex quo Monarcha 92

Sinarum publica lege Christianam fidem permisit, cujus nogotii historiam praesens libellus tradit. Hactenus enim tolerabantur magis Christiani ritus quam permittebantur, nec vel Sinensium vel Tartarorum Principum favor, meritaque nostrorum aliud effecerant, quam ut conniveretur, suspensa legum executione, quae in sectas improbatas districtae habentur, quibus nostra religio connumeraebatur; sed fecit materialis coeli Studium, & (ut eleganter in opere quodam suo Sinice & latine edito ajebat Verbiestius.) Regales animos dignata movere ut Uranie sancta nostra & vere coelestis doctrina admitteretur. Mox Geometriae nostrae firmitas, ubi primum à Rege gustata est, tantae admirationi fuit, ut facilè crederei in rebus aliis etiam recta docere, qui sic ratiocinari didicissent. [XIV] Riccius Sinensibus primus quid Europaei possent sub initium seculi hujus ostenderat; Schallus, sub 'Sinensi Monarcha & sub Tartaro successore publice triumphum egerat de Sinensi astronomia; Verbiestius rem Christianam sub Principe adhuc minore annis, hostili jam furore eversam, magna virtute restituii, & mox Regis juvenis familiaritatem adeptus, constantiam viri invenit. Usurum promta voluntate Principis scientiarum dulcedine capti, & missionarios accersentem, aliquandiu lites impediere, quae Vicariis Pontificis, & Lusitanis intercedebant jus Episcopos Sinis nominandi vindicantibus. Sed & inter Episcopos Heliopolitanum & Berytensem, cum ampia potestate à Pontifice in orientem destinatos, & missionarios ex ordinibus religiosis profectos privilegiisque suis & prima possessione subnixos varie certatum est, donec Pontificis autoritas vicit. Compositis ergo rebus Verbiestius sibi non defuit, & cum plurimum in animo Principis posset, persuasit ipsi, quod res est, esse in Europaeorum doctrina magnarum rerum thesauros, effecitque, ut quod nemo meminit à Sinis factum (nisi cum in occidentem destinatus olim legatus ex prima Indiae Insula infelix Fae idolum attulit) mitteretur in Europam ille ipse quem dixi Grimaldus, ut homines v a r i arum artium periti adducerentur. Cujus ab hoc viro suscepti laboris memoria tanti fuit apud Imperatorem (extincto jam Verbiestio, & nondum reverso Grimaldo) ut in libello supplice pro liberiate religionis oblato, inter magna Doctorum Europaeorum merita recenseretur. [ X V ] Mox cum quinque Jesuitae Galli Mathematicis scientiis instructi, ex Siamensi regno invitis quidem tunc Lusitanis 93

ad sinas penetrassent, nova occasio oblata est nostris Imperatorem demerendi. Mosci Barbaras nationes prudenti moderatione paulatim sub jugum pellicientes, propagato in immensum Imperio, ita Tartaris Sinensibus appropinquaverant, ut tandem de finibus controversiae nascerentur. Res nunc armis, nunc tractatibus acta est: Tandem in urbe Nipchou ditionis Moschicae, utriusque gentis legati justis propemodum exercitibus stipati convenere, Sinenses secum adduxere patres Pererium Lusitanum, & Gerbillonium Galium Jesuitas, quibus interpretibus factum est, ut ultima manus feliciter imponeretur negotio, firma pace conclusa, ipsisque Legatis publice profitentibus, in tanto morum & consiliorum divortio & scrupulosissimarum nationum aemulatione re infecta discessuros omnes fuisse, nisi affuissent. Quo deinde successu ipse Imperator prudentissime usus est, ut Europaeos Doctores tribunalibus suis commendaret. [XVI ] Facta mihi copia est literarum, quas ex loco Tractatuum Gerbillonius ad Hedraeum & Verjussium scripsit Moscisque curandas commendavit, ex quibus non contemnenda didici & in appendice subjeci. Quaedam etiam brevis relatio novissimae Moscorum ad Sinas pace jam facta obitae legationis vel itineris potius hic adjicitur. Amplam & argumenta dignam expectamus à Dn. Brandio Lubecensi, qui Ablegatus ipse fuit. Addemus & Notitiam libri Astronomici Sinensibus simul & latinis characteribus à Verbiestio, editi, & à me inspecti, & breves R.P. Grimaldi Praesidis in Mathematico Tribunali literas Goa ex itinere datas 6. Decemb. 1693. cum ad Sinas suos rediret; vel ideo quod spem egregiarum in Europam communicationum mihi fecere; & postremas R. P. Thomae natione Belgae vice Praesidis in Mathematico tribunali, quibus nonnulla de insigni Christianismi progressu docemur, & spero excitari posse Europaeas aulas Ecclesiasque, ut operarios mittant in paratissimam messem. [ X V I I ] Ex his etiam colligi videtur Grimaldum, quem ut primum Pequimum attigerat, periculose decubuisse intelleximus magno publicae rei bono restitutumesse. Hic cum Roma digrederetur,missionariorum partem maximam in Lusitanis navibus praemittens, constituen t terra ire per Moscos, literis & sigillo Tribunalis Regii rerum militarium supremam curam gentis instructus, & Magno Caesare nostro Regeque Poloniae in itinere salutatis; sed nec sui negotii momento, ,nec tantorum principum commendatione obtinere potuit ut à Moscis admitteretur, quod 94

paulo ante fatum etiam R. P. Aprilis sensit, cujus itinerarium extat. [ X V I I I ] A me Grimaldus Andreae Mulleri Pomerani orientalium rerum doctissimi, promissa Clavis Sinicae acceperat, & virum, per Silesiam transiturus convenire frustra quaesierat, quanquam subdubitans desuccessu, nihil tamen in tanta re judicans negligendum. Sed certabat in Mullero cum doctrina morositas, itaque & ego & Grimaldus & Ludolphus, & Magnus ipse Elector defunctus à quo Berolinensem praeposituram acceperat, frustra fuimus; sive ille inventa sua nimio aestimaret, sive nondum satis exculta in apricum proferre dubitaret, majora credi putans de ignotis. Et eo usque processit singulare v i r i ingenium, ut minas quas sparserat executus, schedas suas paulo ante obitum exussisse dicatur, ambiguo judicio utrius nobis notitiam subtrahere voluerit, scientiae suae an nescientiae. Ego, ut praeclara aliqua jam tum obtinuisse, ita plura sperasse arbitror, quae potuisset praestare si satis fuisset adjutus; quòd si intelligentibus ingenue rem omnem exposuisset, haud dubie magnorum principum, & sui praesertim domini favore desiderata supplesset. Interea quicquid hoc fuit, quod non plane di nihilo fuisse arbitror, obstinatione v i r i caetera boni & bene meriti, Christianae rei & missionibus periit. [XIX] Grimaldus autem, ut ad hunc revertar, i m p e n e t r a t e s Moscos expertus, iter Genuam relêgit, inde Massiliam & hinc Smyrnam navigans, terra ad Persas pervênit, quorsum eum & ultra etiam, literae meae sunt secutae, quas commendatitiis pro Grimaldo ad Persarum Regem suis Serenissimus Poloniae Rex adjungi jusserat, commendantibus RR. PP. Vota & Kochanskio: tametsi ipso jam digresso literae Ispahanum advenere. Ex Persis per Usbeccenses Tartaros & Bocharam porro ad Sinas cogitaverat sed infestis itineribus in ilia barbarie deterritus, tritiore via per Goam et Indos Macaensem postremo portum tenuit: & magno Principis gaudio summoque honore in Sinensi Imperio fuit exceptus. [ X X ] Nunc res Christiana egregie amplificari dicitur, maxima spe progressuum majorum, praesertim si verum est, quod R. P. Adamus Admandus Kochanskius, pollens insigni humanitate, praeclaraque rerum praesertim mathematicarum scientia, inventisque etiam suis Jesuitici ordinis ornamentum, sibi nuntiatum ad me scripsit,Haeredem Imperii aliqua linguarum Europaearum notitia imbui. Jam ex Gallia nova Missionariorum supplementa mittuntur. 95

Spero Germaniam quoque sibi & Christo non defuturam & quod literis Viennam scriptis optare me signivicavi, Caesareo cumMoscis foedere nuper icto mittendis ad Sinas Evangelii praeconibus aditus apertos: summa Caesar is pietate & sapientia utente R. P. Menegatto Confessano, cujus doctrina eminens auctoritati respondet. Quod si ea res cordi sit iis ad quos pertinet, putem aliqua moneri posse, ut divino munere, pronisque rebus tanto rectius utamur. [XXI ] Jam olim Sinae Christum audire caepére. Serum nomine Romanis & Graecis notos fuisse constat. Justiniani magni temporibus vermes serici textores aliati sunt in Romanum Imperium, tunc etiam Cosmas Monachus Indopleustes supra alios remotarum gentium notitiam dedit. Ex ejus scriptis excerptam Inscriptionem Adulitanam Africae interioris Holstenius edidit. Idem Cosmas, quod nemo ante ipsum quantam constet, regionis Sericae verum nomen prodidit. Nam Tzin vocat, quae pronunciatio magis veritati accedit, quam nostra vulgaris, cum Sinas aut Chinam nominamus, Tschinam enim cum Lusitanis efferendam jam dixi. Porro Syriae Christianos penetrasse ad Sinas & Christo Ecclesiam fundasse, monumentum prodit apud Sinenses nostro seculo repertum, quod edidit Athanasius Kircherus, & Andreas quoque Mullerus illustravit. Cum vero apud eruditos dubitatione aliqua libatum fuerit, Melchisedecus Thevenotius Bibliothecarius in Gallia Regius, qui maxima rerum cognitione instructus, & praeclara Consilia agitans Geographiam imprimis illustrare cogitabat, subsidia quaedam juvandae ejus autoritati in Mahometanorum scriptis invènit, quae vereor ne morte viri interciderint. Postea inquirens intellexi Herbelotium Galium Orientalium rerum notitia instructissimum, qui & ipse obiit, Relationem quandam (Arabicam an Persicam) itineris per Usbeccenses ad Catainos vel Sinenses, magno Hetruriae Duci interpretatum, ubi comprobatio quaedam extare dicitur antiqui apud Sinas Christianismi; quam in publicum proferri, cum rei Christianae intersit, V. CL. Antonium Magliabechium, & meis & aliorum laudationibus saepe nominatum, hortatus sum, ut quicquid hoc est erui curet, favituro haud dubie Magno Duce cujus aequat pietatem sapientia. [ X X I I ] Apud nos post Andr. Mulleri obitum Christianus Menzelius Serenissimi & Potentissimi Electoris Archiater, Sinensem eruditionem 96

Berolini conservat; optimam ejus voluntatem animante prono favore Electoris sapientissimi, & verae pietatis fideique propagandae ardentissimo studio nemini concedentis. Porro cum haec quam nunc edo Rectoris Collegii Pekinensis relatio à R. P. de Amarat Lusitano ex urbe missa, commendante Dn. de Cochenheim Celsissimi Episcopi Monasteriensis Consiliario mihi communicata sit, putavi rei Christianae interesse, ut mature extaret divini beneficii accurata recitatio, conferenda cum iis, quae R. P. Ludov. de Comitibus in sua rerum Sinensiu expositione Gallica attigit.* Nec me inconsulte facturum putavi, si quaedam adjicerem praefarerque, quibus Europaea pietas magis magisque ad maximum negotium prosequendum inflammetur. Certe tanta est per se amplitudo Sinensis Imperii, tantaque prudentissimae nationis in Oriente opinio, & in exemplum caeteris valitura auctoritas, ut vix inde ab Apostolicis temporibus aliquid majus pro Christiana fide agitatum videatur. [XXIII] Faxit Deus ut solida & durabilia sint gaudia nostra, nec imprudenti zelo, vel intestinis dissidiis hominum Apostolica officia obeuntium, aut pravis exemplis nostrorum turbentur.

* For the translation of the differing version of 1697 see supra, pp. 97

85-86.

mòex Abyssinia, 77 Adolph of Cambridge, Duke, 61-62 n.22 Acta eruditorum, 57 Adrian, Patriarch, 68 n.2 Adulis, 83 n.57 Alexander VIII, Pope, 78 n.30 Amarai, Michel do, 23, 85 n.70 amber. 17, 52-53, 54,

Bibliothèque de l'Institut, 49 Bibliothèque royale, 12, 46 Bilfinger, George Eberhard, 64 Boreel, Jacob, 41 n.8 Bosses, Bartholomaeus des, 64 Bouvet. Joachim. 22. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 49, 56, 58, 65, 73-74 n. 15, 75 Portrait historique de l'empereur de la Chine, 2, 33-34 relations with Leibniz, 33-34, 35-37 Boy m, Michel, 29, 34 n.49 Brand, Adam, 4, 47, 53, 54, 80 Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, 52 Brandenburg-African Trading Company, 43 calendar reform, 51-52 East India Company, 43, 45, 76 n.24 position in Germany, 42 treaty with Russia of 1697, 16-17 Brucker, Jacob, 65 Buddeus, Johann F., 63 Buddhism, 79 n.34

60-61

apostolic vicars. 78, also n.30 Arnauld, Antoine, 75. 76 Artificio, hominum miranda Naturae in Sina et Europa, ubi e xi mia. . . . , 28 Artois, Palma de. 19 Astrakhan, 11, 13 n.31 Augustus of Saxony, 42 Avril, Philippe, 14, 31 in Poland, 11 in Russia, 11, 14 Voyages, 12 Baillet, 12 n.24 Barnabê, Louis, 11 Bayer, G. S.. 4 n.9, 85 n.67 Beirut, 79 Belobotskii, André, 14 99

Confucius, 50, 65, 76 Cosimo III, Grand Duke, 85 n.66 Cosmas Indicopleustes, 83 Couplet, Philippe, 3, 7 n.3, 21, 22, 24, 28, 47 Berlin visit, 47, 77 n.28 Croze, M. V . de la, 62 Cuneau, J. J. 15, 16, 42 n . l l , 50, 54 n.45, 56, 58 Cunningham, Dr. James, 61-62 n.22 Czaplietz, Johann Reyher, 17, 51 n.35

Burnet, Gilbert, 41, 56, 61,

62 Burnet de Kemney, Thomas,

61 calendar, 3, 30, 37, 51, 62, 69 n.3 Cathay, 7, 85 Charles XII, King of Sweden, 17 Ch§r6metef, N., 18 n.46 China astronomy, 69 c i v i l life, 69-71 cultivated area, 68 disputes over proper word f o r in Europe, 68 n.l, 84 dynastic histories, 71 n.6 examination system, 72 geometry, 69, 73-74 identified as Cathay, 7 magistracy, 72 Manchu conquest, 5 military science, 71 Nerchinsk treaty of 1689, 79-80 politeness, 70 population, 68 practical philosophy, 75 size, 86 toleration of Christianity, 77 vices, 71 Chu Hsi, 64 Clement X, Pope, 8 Clerf, Johannes, 23, 58, 85 n.72 Cleyer, Andreas, 35, 36, 37, 46 Cochenheim, Ernst, 23, 85, also n.71 Colai, 70 Colbert, J. B., 9

Danckelmann, Eberhard, 49 D'Argens, Marquis, 65 David, George, 10, 10-11 n.18, 32 Delia Chiesa, Bernardino, 79 n.32 De Sainte-Marie, M., 64 De Tournon's legation, 63 Dieu, Louis de, 77 Dunin-Szpot, Ignace, 18 n.46 Dutch, 7, 8, 9, 13 n.31, 76, also n.23 blockade of Goa, 7 in Peking, 13 Dutens, L., 57 Fa-hsien, 79 n.34 F e l l e r , J. F., 57 Ferdinand II, Emperor, 7 Ferdinand II of Furstenberg, 23 Ferdinand III, Emperor, 21 " F o , " 79 n.34 Fontaney, Jean de, 16, 22, 36 Franciscans, 5, 19 100

Francke, August Hermann, 59, 60, 62 Frederick III, Elector, 17, 42, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55, 62, 63, 85 Frederick Christian of Plettenberg, 23, 85 n.71 Frederick William, Great Elector, 42, 46, 47, 81 portrait, 47 French Academy of Sciences, 22 furs, 17 Galileo, 69 geometry, 69, 73-74, 78 Gerbillon, Jean François, 4, 10-11 n.18, 14, 15, 16, 22, 73-74 n.15, 74-75, 80 Gian-Priamo, Nikolai, 20 Goes, Bento de, 7 Golovin, Theodore A., 14-15 Goutman, Abraham, 13 n.31 Grimaldi, Philippe Maria, 3-4, 13-14, 24, 28-29, 30, 31, 32, 36, 79, 81, 82 attempts to enter Russia, 14 Rome meeting with Leibniz, 14, 24, 28-29, 73 Grueber, Johann, 8

Hertel, Laurentius, 56 n.2 Holstenius, 83 Hsiao hsüeh ("Moral Philosophy for Youth"), 64 Hyde, Thomas, 47 Ides, Ysbrandt, 16, 47 Innocent XII, Pope, 79 n.33 Izmailov, Leon V., 20 Jablonski, Daniel, 52, 54 Jesuits, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 24, 25, 26, 42, 58 annual letters, 27-28 at Nerchinsk, 14-15 comparisons of Europe and China, 27-28 encyclopedic works on China, 37, 65 finances, 10, 21, 23 in Poland, 11 missions, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 21, 22, 24, 75-76, 77 opposed by Portugal, 8 relations with Leopold I, 8 translations, 69 n.3 Kaempfer, Engelbert, 11 K'ang-hsi Emperor, 2, 13, 14, 25, 33, 35, 47, 72-74, 78-79, 80 n.42 edict of toleration of 1692, 23, 25 foreign learning, 79 geometry, 78 interest in the land route, 5 relations with the Dutch, 9 Kircher, Athanasius, 21, 28, 35, 84

Hanover, 2 Harlequin, 70 Hedraeus (see La Chaize), 74, 80 Heliopolis [Baalbek], 78 Herbelot de Molainville, Barthélémy d', 84 n.65 Hermann of Baden-Baden, Margrave, 43 101

Kochanski, Adam A., 30, 31, 32, 36, 37, 81 n.43, 82, 83 n.54 questions to the Jesuits. 34-35 La Chaize, G. de (see Hedraeus). 9-10, 12, 15, 22, 50 La Loubère, Simon de, 30 Laureati, John, 29-30 Le Comte, Louis, 22, 23, 61, 73, 86 Lefort, Franz, 16 Lefort, Peter, 16 Le Gobien, Charles, 58 Leibniz amber, 52-53 arithmetic machine, 32, 35 ars combinatoria, 35 binary arithmetic, 32, 35, 63 calendar, 37, 51-52, 62 Chinese philosophy, 63-64 chronology, 34 civil service, 37 correspondence with Protestants, 40, 42 De cultu Confucii civili, 63 De expeditione Aegyptiaca, 9 intermediary on China. 37 land route ideas, 8-9, 19-20, 65, 83 language. 29, 32, 40. 49, 65 memorial of 1700 to Frederick III, 52-53 missions, 76, 77

objectivity, 30 Papebroch correspondence, 24 philosophical calculus, 35 questions to Miiller, 34, 46. 82 n.51 questions to the Jesuits, 29, 33 relations with Bouvet, 33-34, 35-37 relations with Cuneau, 15-16, 50-51 relations with Francke, 59-60 relations with J. Clerf, 23 relations with Kochanski, 30-32 relations with La Loubère, 30 relations with Mentzel, 49 relations with Sophie Charlotte, 37, 50 relations with Tsar Peter, 16, 19-20 relations with Vota, 32 reunion of Christendom, 40, 42 Rites Controversy views, 25-26. 37. 64, 76 Rome meeting with Grimaldi, 14, 24, 28-29. 73 scientific societies, 32, 52, 62, 65 Leopold I, Emperor, 8, 10, 18, 21, 43, 46, 47. 81 n.45, 83 n.55 Lier, Gijsel van, 43, 45 Longobardi, Nicolas, 64 Louis XIV, 9, 21 Loyola, Ignatius, 6 102

Protestant reactions to, •58-59 reviews, 57 table of contents, 3 n.4 Noyelles, Charles de, Jesuit General, 10, 22

Ludolf, Hiob L., 25, 56, 59, 81

Magliabecchi, Antonio, 25, 56, 85 Maigrot, Charles, 79 n.32,-. also n.33 Manchus, 5, 73, also n.15 Marperger, Paul Jacob, 54 Martini, M., 21 Mazarin, Cardinal, 46 n.21 Mei, Konrad, 60, 61, 62 Mencke, Otto, 57 Menegatti, Francis, 18, 83 Mentzel, Christian, 29, 37, 45, 46, 47, 49, 62, 85 mercantilism 27 Morell, André, 41, 49, 56 Müller, Andreas, 29, 34, 45-46, 62, 81, 82, 84, 85

Oliva, Paul, Jesuit General, 21

Pallu, Francois, 78 n.31 Papebroch, Daniel, 24. 26, 58, 59 Pereira, Thomas, 10 n.18, 14, 80 Pe-t'ang library, 56 n.3 Peter the Great, 11, 13 n.27, 14, 16, 17, 31, 40, 68 n.2 oral promise, 18 orders Russian Orthodox mission in Peking, 19 tour of western Europe in 1697 and 1698, 16-19 ukaze of November 12, 1698, 19 Picques, Louis, 47 Poland, 39-40 Portugal, 8 ecclesiastical benefices, 78 n.30 Printzen, Luwig von, 51 n.35 Prit, Georg, 63 Prussian State Library, 45, 46, 62

Nerchinsk treaty of 1689, 4, 6, 10-11 n.18, 14, 25, 79-80 Nestorian monument, 84 Nestorians, 5, 32 Neuville, Foy de la, 12, 31 Niedersächische Landesbibliothek, 2 Nipchou (Nerchinsk), 79 Novissima Sinica copies published, 56 distribution, 56-57 editions, 1-2 in China, 56 in Russia, 57 Jesuit reactions to. 57-59 manuscript translations, 2, 4 missionaries from the Chinese, 75

Ramazzini, Bernardino, 56 Raule, Benjamin, 43 Reimann, J. F., 65 Remond, Nicholas, 64 Reyher, Samuel R., 52 103

Ricci, Matteo, 5, 7, 25, 78 Rimini, papal nuncio, 18 Rites Controversy, 1, 25, 37, 58, 61, 63, 64, 76 Rojas, Christian von, 43 Russia embassy to Peking of 1693-1695, 16 Nerchinsk treaty of 1689, 80-81 opening of route to Persia, 7 position in Europe, 40 Siberian route, 7 Russo-Brandenburg treaty of 1697, 17-18 Russo-Polish treaty of 1686, 11-12, 17

Schall, von Bell, Johann Adam, 7, 21, 72-73, 78 Schröck, Lucas, 35, 36, 37 Schultz, Philip, 54 sea travel, 7 Sinophilism, 65 Sobieski, King John of Poland, 10, 11, 31, 40, 51 n.36, 80 n.36, 82, 83 n.54 Sophie, Princess, 13 n.27 Sophie, Electress of Hanover, 59 Sophie Charlotte, Electress of Brandenburg, 37, 49, 50, 62 Spanheim, Ezechiel S., 50, 56 Sparfvenfeldt, J. G., 41, 42 n.10

Spathari, Nicholas, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 31, 42 n.10 Spizel, Gottlieb, 28, 35 Suarez, Joseph, 3, 23, 25, 85 Tartar, 73 Tavernier, Jean Baptiste, 45, 76, also n.23 Tentzels Monatliche Unterredungen, 57 Thfevenot, Melchisedech, 84 Thomas, Antoine, 3, 4, 10, 25, 32, 80 Verbiest, Ferdinand, 3, 12, 13, 14, 23, 26, 31, 51, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, 79, 80, also n.42 land route ideas, 9-10 Verjus, Antoine, 33, 37, 56, 57, 74, 80 Visdelou, Charles, 22, 36, 84 n.65 Vossius, Isaac, 57 Vota, Charles Maurice, 13 n.31, 31, 32, 51, 82 Wagner, J. C., 28 Wallis, J., 41 Weigel, Erhard, 51 Witsen, Nicholas, 16, 41, also n.8 Wolf von Lüdinghausen, Friedrich, 18, 51 n.36 Wolff, Christian, 64 Xavier, Francis, 6

104